Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 54

This is an archive of past discussions about Catholic Church. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

[This edit makes me wonder whether the article gives far more stress than the Catholic Church does to the word "transubstantiation", and in doing so aligns itself with the opponents of the Church. What does the Catholic Church actually teach? "The bread and wine ... become Christ's Body and Blood" (CCC 1333). Anglican (and other non-Catholic) liturgies based on the same sources as the Catholic eucharistic prayers refuse to use the word "become" and instead say "be", for, especially in the combination "be for us", "be" permits a merely symbolic interpretation, implying that the Catholic Church is wrong in teaching that there is a change in the reality of the bread and wine. "It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament ... This word transforms the things offered ... by the blessing nature itself is changed ..." (CCC 1375). Again, the idea of change. This is followed by one of the only two mentions in CCC of the word "transubstantiation" (the other being the summary in CCC 1413 of this same passage, so not, strictly speaking, a different instance of use of the word): "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (CCC 1376). For the Church the fact of change, real change, is what is given prominence as basic and essential; to this it adds that the word "transubstantiation" is fittingly and properly used as terminology to speak of the change. It does not say that this term must be used; it does not forbid the use of other terms – obviously not, since the Church itself uses "change", "alteration", etc. – provided they don't contradict what is implied in the term "transubstantiation".

I think the following would be a much better account of what the Church teaches:

The Church teaches that, by the liturgical consecration, the sacramental bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, a change for which it declares "transubstantiation" to be an appropriate term. Esoglou (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Since no objection has been voiced, I am making the change. Esoglou (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Any reason to take the "Real Presence" wikilink from the words "the body and blood of Christ?"--Coquidragon (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me to illuminate "body and blood", but on the contrary to suggest that, in the teaching of the Catholic Church, the bread and wine are changed not into the body and blood of Christ but instead into an abstract presence. Others may think differently. Esoglou (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

What? That is what transubstantiation is all about. The bread and wine become the body and blood. There is no abstract presence. Your own explanation is clear. I will go ahead and add the wikilink along with a reference.Coquidragon (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I am letting the wikilink stay, but am registering here my opposition. Lutheran and other Christian readers of Wikipedia say the presence of Christ is real, but they say the bread and wine are not changed into anything. The Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence, also known as sacramental union, is that the body and blood of Christ are really present "in, with and under ..." Others declare that what you might call a merely spiritual presence is real, a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And so on. The phrase "the body and blood of Christ" is far clearer on its own than when burdened with a wikilink to "real presence". To quote yourself, what the Catholic Church teaches is that "the bread and wine become the body and blood. There is no sbstract presence" – and, one could add, no accompanying presence, no merely spiritual presence ...

I have thought it necessary to make one change, specifying what part of the CCC exposition on the Eucharist concerns the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, which is fittingly called transubstantiation. Giving the whole long section as a reference is not very much better than giving the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a whole. Esoglou (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I found a solution. I renamed the roundabout subheading "Pre-reformation perspective" at Real Presence to "Catholic and Orthodox" views. I then directed wikilinked "Body and blood" here to that subsection. (The title "Pre-reformation..." further had the issue of containing post-reformation views, including the term "transubstantiation" itself). --Zfish118 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In Catholic Church teaching, the bread and wine are not changed into a presence. In Catholic Church teaching, they are changed respectively into the body and into the blood of Christ. I must therefore add that distinction to the article. Consequently, I must also remove the wikilink. One cannot say that the bread is changed into the body and blood of Christ, nor that the wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ. The Catholic Church does not say that the wine is not changed into the body of Christ, although the blood is accompanied by the body, as it is also by the soul and divinity. One might as well say that the wine is changed into the soul of Christ.

I took it that the purpose of the change of subheading at "Real Presence" was on NPOV grounds was to leave open the question whether the present belief of Catholics and Orthodox was the general Christian belief before the Protestant Reformation. It appears I was wrong. Esoglou (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Esoglou:With respect to your last comment, I should say that under each species, Christ's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is present. Under the miracle of transubstantiation, each bread and wine become Christ, whole and entire. The bread becomes body, blood, should and divinity. The wine becomes body, blood, should and divinity. There is no "respectively," at least not only. Here is the quote from Trent (13th session), confirmed by the instructions Eucharisticum Mysterium (1967), Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004).

"[15] This has always been the belief of the Church of God, that immediately after the consecration the true body and the true blood of our Lord, together with His soul and divinity exist under the form of bread and wine, the body under the form of bread and the blood under the form of wine <ex vi verborum;>[16] but the same body also under the form of wine and the same blood under the form of bread and the soul under both in virtue of that natural connection and concomitance whereby the parts of Christ the Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die <no more>,[17] are mutually united;[18] also the divinity on account of its admirable hypostatic union with His body and soul Wherefore, it is very true that as much is contained under either form as under both.[19] For Christ is whole and entire under the form of bread and under any part of that form; likewise the whole Christ is present under the form of wine and under all its parts."

--Coquidragon (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Because now the body of Christ is not separated from his blood, nor separated from his soul, for that reason where his body (what the bread has been changed into) is, there also are his blood, his soul, and his divinity. And where the blood that the wine has been changed into is, there also are his body, his soul, and his divinity. The Church accepts what Jesus said. Taking bread, he said: "This is my body", not "This my body and blood". Taking wine separately, he said: "This is my blood", not "This is my blood and body." If bread were changed into Christ's body on the original Holy Saturday, while Jesus was dead, it would not be accompanied by his blood or by his soul, though it would still be accompanied by his divinity.

Read Modern Catholic Dictionary: "Concomitance" and see the Wikipedia article Concomitance (doctrine). "In the classic exposition of the theory by Thomas Aquinas (ST, III, 76, 1 and 2) 'by virtue of the sacrament' the bread is changed into Christ's body and the wine into his blood; but 'by natural concomitance' Christ's soul and divinity are inseparable from his body and blood. For according to Aquinas the divinity never departed from Jesus' dead body; but his soul, though separated from his body at death, must also be present in the eucharist since it is the risen Christ that we receive. By virtue of the sacrament the bread is changed only into Christ's body; but, as the blood as well as the soul and divinity are present by natural concomitance, Christ is received in his full reality even under the single species of bread." Now read again the quotation from the Council of Trent that you gave, and see that this is what it teaches: the body into which, vi verborum (in virtue of the words that Jesus spoke), the bread is changed is accompanied by the blood, the soul, and the divinity (but what the bread is changed into is the body, not the blood, or the soul, or the divinity); and the blood into which, vi verborum (in virtue of the words that Jesus spoke), the wine is changed is accompanied by the body, the soul, and the divinity (but what the wine is changed into is the blood, not the body, or the soul, or the divinity). And so, as I said, in a thought experiment of transubstantiation of bread into the body of Christ on the original Holy Saturday, would the bread have been changed, as you seem to hold, into his blood and soul as well as into his body? Esoglou (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

My primary concerns for the changing the heading were due to the content; adjusting the wikilink here was incidental. Calling these the universally accepted "Pre-Reformation" views was unsourced, and the content, as previously mention, did not reflect primarily Pre-Reformation beliefs. The existence of various "heresies" regarding the nature of Christ, for instance, contradicts the universal claim. The text even states that the "main article" was "Eucharist - Catholic".

What I think is trying to be expressed here is that the church's belief is Christ is really present in the Sacrament; that Christ's body and blood are plainly present on the altar following the words of institution (along with his soul and divinity). This is a distinctly catholic (lower case) belief, that exists in contrast to other interpretations of "real presence". The awkward piping of "Real presence#Catholic..." is simply a wikiartifact reflecting the lack of an article for "Body and Blood of Christ". --Zfish118 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't/don't remember who changed the head in question. I had and have no objection to it. As I said, I took it to be an NPOV edit. Esoglou (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Transubstantiation is of course not the whole of the Church's belief about Christ's presence in the Eucharist. As you know, I made an attempt to make that idea less prominent, but my attempt was judged too wordy. Transubstantiation is the change of the substance, the reality, of some bread into the substance, the reality, of Christ's body (and similarly regarding wine and his blood), but it isn't changed into the substance of a dead body. It is changed into the substance of a now living glorified body. That's where the doctrine of concomitance comes in. Esoglou (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

My tone, [above before revisions], was a bit harsher than needed, and I apologize for that. A possible workaround is the article "Body of Christ", which could logically be piped from "body and blood of Christ", if it were found acceptable. This article perhaps more explicitly makes the connection: "real presence" (of the) "body and blood" than the other article did. Better cross referencing between the two might improve both articles. [Upon further review, the source lacks citations for many of its claims, and is perhaps less appropriate]. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I welcome your tone. It at least indirectly aids clarity, by inviting an explanation. I am responding at this moment without refreshing my memory of the "Body of Christ" article, which, as I remember it, is largely about the Church, and so not appropriate as a link to "the body of Christ" in this context, and especially not as a link to "the body and blood of Christ" here. Esoglou (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason I think wikilinking body and blood to something is necessary is that body and blood do not convey the totality of Catholic teaching. It is not mere flesh as in meat from a slaughtered animal, but the living, risen christ; the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ as express by Trent ("The totality...").--Zfish118 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I have already responded. The Church's teaching on the Eucharist is not limited to the change of substance. Esoglou (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I missed your response when added my last entry. (I had only a few minutes to elaborate and didn't realize anyone had responded) I looked at the Transubstantiation article more closely. It seems to cover both the change and resulting presence of the body and blood adequately, and even how it differs from protestant beliefs. Between the wikilinking to the Eucharist itself, and to transubstantiation, all the major points seem to be covered. I withdraw the need to wikilink Body and Blood in the lead. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the "Women's ordination" section might be better named "Role of women", or "Women religious". While the section does address the ordination issue, it initially discusses the role women do hold in the church, not solely what they do not. --Zfish118 (talk)

I misread the edit history; "women and ordination" does better convey the content than "women and clergy"; I see no strong need for the change now, but will leave the other suggestions for consideration. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In responding to some questions regarding the doctrine of the Church concerning itself, the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated, "Clarius dicendum esset veram Ecclesiam esse solam Ecclesiam catholicam romanam..." ("It should be said more clearly that the Roman Catholic Church alone is the true Church ...")

I find it difficult to correct this sentence in paragraph 3 of the "Apostolic" section, and I can only suggest that it be deleted.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not say what is here attributed to it. "Clarius dicendum esset veram Ecclesiam esse solam Ecclesiam catholicam romanam ..." was an objection one or more bishops advanced against the draft of what became the document Unitatis redintegratio. The objection was that "it should be said more clearly than in the draft that ..." And the response of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (not of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) to this objection is not given in the article! In other words, the article as it stands cites for what it states an objection against what it states and leaves the objection unanswered!

Much the same happens in the next paragraph. It states that "the Church teaches that the Catholic Church is ... the 'one true Church'". In support, it cites in a footnote an objection that the Church's teaching (in Unitatis redintegratio) does not in fact say this as expressly as it ought – together with the response of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity to the objection. This too should be clarified – or else it should be eliminated. Esoglou (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur and have made the deletion. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

For reference, the text in question stated:

In responding to some questions regarding the doctrine of the Church concerning itself, the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated, "Clarius dicendum esset veram Ecclesiam esse solam Ecclesiam catholicam romanam..." ("It should be said more clearly that the Roman Catholic Church alone is the true Church..")<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html, C) [In Caput I in genere: Act Syn III/II 296s]</ref> And it also clarified that the term "subsistit in" in Lumen Gentium "indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church".

Is the other questioned statement ("the Church teaches that the Catholic Church is ... the "one true Church") sufficiently well sourced by the following citation? Expressius dicatur unam solam esse veram Ecclesiam Christi; hanc esse Catholicam Apostolicam Romanam; omnes debere inquirere, ut eam cognoscant et ingrediantur ad salutem obtinendam... R(espondetur): In toto textu sufficienter effertur, quod postulatur. Ex altera parte non est tacendum etiam in aliis communitatibus christianis inveniri veritates revelatas et elementa ecclesialia ("Let it be said more expressly that the true Church of Christ is only one; that it is the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church; that all must endeavour to get to know it and enter it, in order to obtain salvation." Response: "Taking the text as a whole, what is requested is indicated sufficiently. On the other hand, the fact that revealed truths and ecclesial elements are found also in other Christian communities must not be passed over in silence.") I am unsure. Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not look into that one initially, but "One true church" as a phrase is explicitly cited in the article lead:

<ref name="Catholic News Service">{{cite web|url=http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703923.htm%7Ctitle=Vatican congregation reaffirms truth, oneness of Catholic Church|publisher=Catholic News Service|accessdate=17 March 2012}}</ref>)

I do not find "one true church" to be particularly descriptive of the nuances of Catholic teaching, but the source above uses that phrase exactly. The "Expressius dicatur..." was also used in the lead in conjunction with "Catholic News Service", and it seemed to to have been added more as footnote, providing better nuance to the phrase "one true church", rather than as a citation for the phrase itself. (In the lead, I relocated "Expressius dicatur..." as a reference in a proper footnote discussing such nuances.)

If the phrase is to be kept here, "Catholic news..." could be added as a reference, and "Expressius dicatur..." relocated as a citation for the following commentary. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

By the term "procreative" the Church means that each act is open to the possibility of children, in that there are no barriers or artificial means of frustrating the procreation, but a marital act between one or both infertile people can still be procreative as long as the requirements are met. Perhaps we can expand in this way on the article text, but it seems to me that it should be kept as short and un-technical as possible while the main articles are expanded with all the details. Elizium23 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this needs to be sourced. Esoglou (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I do appreciate the additional sources, but wish to point out that the original source covered the material being discussed to avoid reinventing the wheel. ("CCC, "Conjugal fidelity": 2364–65; "The fecundity of marriage": 2366–72". Vatican.va. Retrieved 17 November 2014.)--Zfish118 (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The new chastity section fails WP:NPOV. It needs to be phrased as "The Church teaches..." or "Catholics believe..." Elizium23 (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Three magic words do not make a passage "neutral". Either the content is appropriate, or needs to be significantly altered/removed (whether that is necessarily I will defer to consensus). However, as currently presented, the text is in a section that is clearly discussing Catholic moral teaching. The section clearly states at the top: "The Catholic Church calls all members to live chastely according to their state in life". Slavish use of in text attributions, when what church teaches is not disputed, are not required, particularly when the actually cited source, the Catechism, clearly presents this as church teaching. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the words make all the difference. Either you state it in Wikipedia's voice or you couch it in terms that make it clear who holds the beliefs. The former is currently in effect, and it is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article. According to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I am confused... If your only concern was the lack of a few key words, why did you start a talk page entry? I take great offense that my contributions are characterized as "failing" NPOV, as this would seems to imply that I am purposefully trying to advance such a point of view. Perhaps to avoid this offense in the future, you might phrase such recommendations as a suggestion for improvement, especially if how to fix a page is not obvious. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I started a talk page entry because (1) everything on this article seems to be of great import and controversy and tiny changes are accompanied by a big hoo-hah, and (2) in the hopes that you would fix it yourself without making me do it. Sorry you got so offended. Elizium23 (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

In the article, we read

"Examples of institutes of consecrated life are the Benedictines, the Carmelites, the Dominicans, the Franciscans, the Missionaries of Charity, the Legionaries of Christ and the Sisters of Mercy."

What was the criteria for selecting these?

• The Benedictines is the most well-known monastic order. It makes sense.
• Now, there are three Mendicant orders: Dominincas and Franciscans are very well-known, but the Carmelites? Why them? Why 3 mendicants?
• Missionaries of Charity - modern very well-know female institute due to Bl. Mother Teresa.
• Legionaries of Christ - modern very well-know male institute due to the scandals as of late.
• Siters of Mercy - To the Catholic world, how well-known is this institute in order to use it as an example of religious institute in this context?

I have no problem with the list. I was just wondering on the criteria. Why these and not others? If there was no criteria, no problem. I don't know if it started with two or three and then editors started adding more.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what the original criteria was, but the Religious Sisters of Mercy was one of the largest and most consequential non-mendicant apostolic communities of women (since I think the MC's are mendicants of sort as well), so it represents a type of religious institute not otherwise represented in the list. The list is heavy on mendicant orders though as you note.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, after reading your comment, I read more about them, and I understand, since few female congregations have had as much influence as them. Nevertheless, although they are located in many countries, their world of influence has been mainly the English-speaking world, hence my question. Regardless, yes, I agree it is a very good example of a female congregation to be included here, since this is the English wiki after all. The question remains, which congregations should this list include?--Coquidragon (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Currently, the Social issues section is separated from Doctrine by the History section. Yet, the Church's stand on social issues is also a matter of doctrine, however debatable this could be to some. Shouldn't Social issues come under Doctrine, or at least, following it. Why is it after History? If this has been discussed before, I apologize. I haven't looked at the archives.--Coquidragon (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It comes after history only because it began as a "contemporary issues" section as an extension of the history section, elaborating on current church history. Based on its current form, placing contiguous or immediately below the doctrine section would be appropriate and logical. I support the proposal. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. That makes sense.--Coquidragon (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made some other adjustments in content order, reflecting previous discussions regarding redundant content as well. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I added this hatnote:

"Roman Catholic Church" redirects here. This may mean more specifically the Latin Church, one of 23 autonomous particular churches alongside the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches.

Which @Dominus Vobisdu: reverted with the summary "Not according to the Church. Slang usage is not of interest here."

Hatnotes are meant to help readers to find their way to the right article. Not all readers are members of the Catholic Church. It is a fact that many people say "Roman Catholic Church" when they mean "Latin Church". Some of them are Wikipedia editors who will wikilink to Roman Catholic Church when they should be wikilinking to Latin Church. We need to help readers get from the wrong article to the right one. This could be done in a few ways:

1. making Roman Catholic Church a dab with Catholic Church and Latin Church as outlinks
2. a {{redirect}} hatnote
3. a {{distinguish}} hatnote
4. Hoping that after reading far enough down through the article the reader will realise they are at the wrong one and learn what the right one is.

Although my edit was #2, I have no objection to #1 or #3 either. Currently it seems like #4 is implemented, and I don't think that's good enough. jnestorius^(talk) 02:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yours is a solution in search of a problem. I highly doubt that a significant amount of readers type in "Roman Catholic Church" when they want to read about the Latin Rite, instead. And practically everyone that wants to read about the Latin Rite specifically will already be familiar with the correct terminology.

The cost of conveniencing at most a handful of readers is far offset by the cost of confusing the rest as to the meaning of the term, which your hatnote does indeed do. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Confusion already exists about "Roman Catholic (term)" and adding an informative hatnote will only serve to educate, not confuse. Elizium23 (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The hatnote proposed did the exact opposite. And I think you overestimate the confusion on the part of readers looking for the specific articles. If readers are that confused, it means they practically always intend to end up at this more general article, not the more arcane Latin Rite article. Like I said, a solution in search of a problem. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Dominus Vobidsu; "Roman Catholic" historically has referred to all churches in communion with the Roman Pontiff. Its use referring to the Latin Church in particular would have to be documented in a significant number of relevant reliable sources to warrant such prominent disambiguation. Anyone not familiar with the terminology can refer to the "Name" and "Organization" sections here for clarification to help find the information they need. --Zfish118 (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The articles Roman Catholic (term) and Latin Church already document precisely the confusion a hatnote would address. Have a look through the matches at Google Scholar search "roman catholic" "greek catholic" and observe how many imply that Greek Catholic is a sibling of Roman Catholic rather than a subtype. Catholics may not often be confused, but Anglicans, say, often are, and those readers must be catered for. If you think the wording of the hatnote adds to the confusion, a different wording would solve that. One effort is this:

"Roman Catholic Church" redirects here. Not to be confused with the Latin Church, one of 23 autonomous particular churches alongside the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches.

jnestorius^(talk) 12:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, vague allusions to confusing use is not sufficient. You must document with relevant reliable sources that there is confusion, or that "Roman Catholic" has taken a new meaning in parallel with "Greek Catholic". Such a parallel meaning is revisionist, changing the historical meaning. It is not an inherently offensive development, but the development must be documented, perhaps from contemporary dictionary entries. It would be prohibited WP:Original Research to draw this conclusion within Wikipedia, rather than cite this conclusion externally. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I also concur with Dominus Vobisdu. In all this discussion, your are forgetting Roman Rite. The official name of what in English is commonly referred as "Catholic Church" is "Roman Catholic Church," hence, the reason for the redirect. If a person is knowledgeable enough as to want to search for the Latin Church or the Roman-Rite Church, which is only one of the rites in the Latin Church, that person would know that Roman Catholic Church > Latin Church > Roman-Rite Church. The current hatnotes are enough. There is no need to clarify that "Roman Catholic Church" is not the "Latin Church."--Coquidragon (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Protoclete just created today, without waiting for the result of this discussion, the Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation). Since this already done, although I don't agree and find it unnecessary, instead of the hatnote, I would suggest just to redirect "Roman Catholic Church" to the disambiguation page (which was the first of the options recommended). This way, the needs for these several editors who have shown concern are met, and we skip the use of the hatnote.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, i missed this particular discussion, re: hatnote vs. disambiguation. I was just going through my long-neglected list of "to-do" edits, based on a previous conversation thread, had noted the disambiguation might be away to avoid all the terminology discussion in other pages. Protoclete (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support the hatnote. Would also support options 1 or 3. Option 4 is no longer acceptable. Am open to an alternative wording for the hatnote. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) should be speedily deleted. It is a poor shadow of the much more firmly based Roman Catholic (term). There is no "Roman Rite Catholic Church", a term not actually used. ... The "consensus" by which the title of this article was changed from "Roman Catholic Church" (as in other English-language encyclopedias) to "Catholic Church" was based in part on the condition that "Roman Catholic Church" would direct to here. Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. As others have said, this is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist, and to the extent it may is already covered by Roman Catholic (term). Haldraper (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

If this is the case, then I withdraw my support for the redirect to the dab, which should be deleted, and reinstate that the hatnote is not needed.--Coquidragon (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Although I expressed above the opinion that Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) should be deleted, I have changed my mind. I have however converted the article into the normal form of a disambiguation page in line with MOS:DAB. It has been an article of a different character, giving questionable arguments for what an editor or editors thought was the proper meaning of various terms. Esoglou (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

About exactly a year ago, I converted Latin Rite to a dab page. This was viewed as somewhat unpopular and quickly reverted. However, considering the current discussion, I thought it might be useful to again propose revisiting this as an option. Elizium23 (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the edits to bring Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) more in line with the editorial guidelines. The purpose of a disambiguation page, though, is to clarify when a term is ambiguous, yes? And then give links to the possible meanings? This is a perfect case for the need for a disambiguation page, even if it includes a link to the more comprehensive Roman Catholic (term) page, these serve two different purposes. The Church is not a democracy even if Wikipedia is, and some things, like equating "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" might be popularly understood to be true but are simply not correct, ecclesiologically speaking (and this really is not even a discussion anywhere but Wikipedia). So, on one hand, you have lots of people who popularly understand "Roman Catholic" to mean "Catholic", yet the experts on the topic more often understand "Roman Catholic" to mean "Latin Catholic", or even Roman and Catholic - so a disambiguation page allows a starting point, then they can go look at each one of those options and find out who, why, or in what language it is meant by the term. Protoclete (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Protoclete: On the contrary, not only "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" is popularly understood to be the same, but in the Academia, Roman Catholic Church refers to the institution under the Roman Pontiff. "Roman" means under the authority of the Pope, it doesn't mean the "Roman Rite." There is: the Roman Catholic Church (under the authority of the Roman Pontiff), which includes the Latin Church (one of the 23 sui generis Roman Catholic Churches), itself which includes the Roman Rite (one of several rites used by the Latin Church of the Roman Catholic Church). In English, the Roman Catholic Church, also known simply as the Catholic Church, is to be distinguished from the Orthodox Catholic Church, also known in the English language as the Eastern Orthodox Church. To confuse Roman Catholic Church with Latin Church is what, using your own words, is simply not correct. There is also no Roman-rite Catholic Church, hence is also not correct to confuse Roman-rite with Latin Church, since there are other rites still in use in the Latin Church, not only the Roman, although it is the ordinary approved rite. The words church and rite, although related, are themselves to be distinguished. There is the Latin Church, most of which uses the Roman-Rite.--Coquidragon (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I do mean this respectfully,Coquidragon, but what academia are you talking about? I would not be surprised if, say, a journalism program following the AP style guide (which equates Roman Catholic and Catholic) holds this position, but in Catholic theology this debate has been basically settled. I would never suggest that a Rite and Church are the same, nor would i ever be caught using the term "Roman-Rite" Catholic Church - so perhaps you are confusing my response with someone else's?

The Catholic Church does not use "Roman Catholic" of itself, except where ecumenical dialogue suggests it, and even that is often very carefully done - when we talk to Lutherans, for example, it is the Latin Church they are in dialogue with (hence, Lutheran-Roman Catholic). Just go search the Vatican website, which favors "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic" by a margin of about 15:1, including all official publications (Encyclicals, the Catechism, Apostolic Letters, etc). Protoclete (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, like you say, in the Catholic theology this debate has been settled. The Roman Catholic Church today have been simply called Catholic Church. This is the theology taught in the English language, not journalism, so I don't know what you are talking about. Yet, the lack of use, popular and in academia, of the term Roman Catholic Church referring to the Catholic Church as a whole doesn't equate it use to refer to the Latin Church. The Lutherans are in dialogue, not with the Latin Church, but with the Catholic Church as a whole, with the Roman Catholic Church. Any advances in relations apply to all 23 churches of the Roman Catholic Church, no only the Latin Church. Another matter is that when Lutherans become Catholic, they join the Latin Church, yet this is based on culture, since Lutherans are themselves sons of the Latin Church. So, the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue, is not Lutheran-Latin Church, but Lutheran-Catholic Church. More over, in the English language, as it is well explained and sourced in this wikipedia, many Easter Catholics call themselves Roman Catholics.

Anyways, Protoclete, I think we are retaking a topic well discussed in this talk page. We can both read the archives and learn more about the other's position, reasoning and sources. Let's just leave it at this. Thanks so much for your feedback.--Coquidragon (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is surely no doubt that what people in general understand by "Roman Catholic Church" is what is dealt with in the article Catholic Church, and that this is, at least for Wikipedia, the primary topic for "Roman Catholic Church". The Wikipedia manual of style states (MOS:DABPRIMARY) that the primary topic "should not be mixed in with the other links". It recommends that "the link back to the primary topic appear at the top, in a brief explanatory sentence" and that, "when the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article". That is precisely the case here. Roman Catholic Church is a redirect to Catholic Church, and we must either follow MOS:DABPRIMARY or first get that changed (a very difficult task) or, of course, change the redirect page Roman Catholic Church (even this would be no easy task). As long as Wikipedia remains as it is, we are obliged to keep Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) as it now stands. Esoglou (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Esoglou: Two questions: 1. Should we also add the Roman Rite to the dab? I actually did, but deleted it since I wanted to ask for feedback first. 2. Should we go ahead and redirect "Roman Catholic Church" to the dab?--Coquidragon (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

1. I don't know of any source that uses "Roman Catholic Church" to mean Roman Rite. Do you? And is there a Carthusian Catholic Church too, to refer to those Latin Catholics who use the Carthusian liturgical rite?

2. In line with the rules in MOS:DABPRIMARY, Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) points to the redirect page Roman Catholic Church in order to indicate its primary topic. MOS:DABPRIMARY also says: "When a page has "(disambiguation)" in its title – i.e., it is the disambiguation page for a term for which a primary topic has been identified – users are most likely to arrive there by clicking on a top link from the primary topic article, generated by a template in the {{otheruses}} series." In other words, the redirect to Catholic Church is still needed, even more than before. Esoglou (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

To my first question, you are completely right. I did what I knew shouldn't do: mix church and rite. To my second question, thanks for explaining. I now understand better how dab pages work. Wouldn't we now need a hatnote here for the new dab page?--Coquidragon (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who put it there and when, but it's there already. Esoglou (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the current one to Catholic Church (disambiguation)? We would need now the Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation).--Coquidragon (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You are right, and I was wrong. I'll try to do something about it. Esoglou (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Some sources that identify "Roman Catholic" with "Latin Church":

Examples of government use in census reports and of scholarly usage of "Roman Catholic" to refer to the Latin Church within the Catholic Church:

• Government of Canada]. "Religion". Catholic 12,810,705; split into: Roman Catholic 12,728,885; Ukrainian Catholic 51,790; Greek Catholic, n.o.s. 14,255; etc {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Government of Poland. "Religion". Religion: Roman Catholic ( 97 % ) , Orthodox (1.5%) , Greek Catholic (1%) , others (0.5 % ) {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Government of Romania. "RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION ACCORDING TO THE 2011 CENSUS" (PDF). Roman Catholic 4.62%, Greek-Catholic 0.80% {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Government of Hungary. "Religions" (PDF). Religions: Roman Catholic 51.9%, Calvinist 15.9%, Lutheran 3%, Greek Catholic 2.6%, other Christian 1%, other or unspecified 11.1%, unaffiliated 14.5% {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Czech Government. "Religions" (PDF). Religions: Roman Catholic Church 1 082 463 ; Greek Catholic Church 9 883 {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Slovak Government. "Religion". Roman Catholic Church (68.9 %), Greek Catholic Church (4.1 %) {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Government of Ukraine. "Religion". communities of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church 3,765 ;communities of the Ukrainian Roman Catholic Church 942 {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Faulk, Edward (2007). 101 Questions and Answers on Eastern Catholic Churches. Paulist Press. p. 7. ISBN 9780809144419. Retrieved 4 January 2015. While this term ["Roman Catholic Church"] has never been part of the official title of the Catholic Church, it can be thought of as synonymous with the more correct Latin Rite Church {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Fortescue, Adrian (2001). The Uniate Eastern Churches. Gorgias Press LLC. p. 3. ISBN 9780971598638. Retrieved 4 January 2015. A Roman Cathodic is a Catholic who uses the Roman rite, just as an Armenian Cathodic is one who uses the Armenian rite. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Engebretson, Kath (2010-08-17). International Handbook of Inter-religious Education. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 127. ISBN 9781402092602. Retrieved 4 January 2015. It must be accepted that "Roman Catholic and "Roman Church" are not equivalent terms [...] In saying this, I realise I am swimming against the current of popular expression, the practice of many writers [...] and, possibly, some Eastern Catholic Churches. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Jones, Rhidian (2011-06-30). The Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England 2nd Edition: A Handbook. A&C Black. p. vii. ISBN 9780567616418. Retrieved 4 January 2015. Arguably these [Eastern Catholic] Churches are Roman Catholic [...]; however, they are not referred to as such in common parlance [...] The Latin Church [...] is also correctly referred to as the Roman Catholic Church.
• Mahieu, Stéphanie; Naumescu, Vlad (2008). Churches In-between: Greek Catholic Churches in Postsocialist Europe. LIT Verlag Münster. p. 24. ISBN 9783825899103. Retrieved 4 January 2015. this relatively small community is now divided into three religious groups: Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, and Orthodox.
• "Immigrant social aspirations and American education". Canadian Slavonic Papers. JSTOR 40867412. 1979. Greek Catholic priests, like Orthodox but unlike Roman Catholic priests, could marry. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
• "No title given". JSTOR 2711932. the laymen and clergymen who established programs of parochial education in Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant immigrant congregations {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

So it's safe to say then that saying "RC Church" when only the Latin church is intended is intended is not just "slang" - it's quite commonplace, even with official published sources. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Any response to this? @Dominus Vobisdu:'s original contestation [I highly doubt that a significant amount of readers type in "Roman Catholic Church" when they want to read about the Latin Rite, instead. And practically everyone that wants to read about the Latin Rite specifically will already be familiar with the correct terminology] looks untenable: many Eastern Catholics and Anglicans (rightly or wrongly) make just such an interpretation, and a hatnote is needed to cater for them (without necessarily endorsing their view; that is the virtue of the {{distinguish}} family of hatnotes). jnestorius^(talk) 14:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

With the creation of the disambiguation page, this is no longer an issue. They type "Roman Catholic Church," but get redirected to "Catholic Church" article. The first thing they find is a link to the "Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation)." The explanation and link to Latin Church is there. Wikipedia guidelines are met.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I interpreted the intervening discussion as dissatisfaction with the existence of Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) as well. As long as that DAB is present and hatnoted, my concerns are addressed. jnestorius^(talk) 15:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I urge caution with using the Romanian, Greek and Ukrainian statistics, as these may be direct translations, without necessarily considering how "Roman Catholic" is used in English. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. By the same token, not all Wikipedia readers are native speakers of English. jnestorius^(talk) 14:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to a discussion regarding the naming and content of category:Christian denominational families found at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_10#Category:Christian_denominational_families. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Could I ask Randykitty why, instead of responding to the reasoned arguments I have made, he/she has repeatedly and consistently ignored them - and now prevented others from editing this page? Is this not a rather blatant abuse of admin privileges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.113.120 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, if your edit was reverted, proper etiquette is to then come to the talk page and discuss the desired changes. I also see no arguments from you on this talk page. Edit summaries do not count. So how about you take the opportunity to discuss it here.Farsight001 (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Farsight001 has it exactly right. You made an edit that fundamentally changed the meaning of that phrase with an edit summary suggesting a strong POV. Discuss it here. If you get consensus, the edit can be restored. Until then, I'll regard attempts to restore it as vandalism. --Randykitty (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Which categories should this article have, along with its two organization subsections: Latin Church and Eastern Catholic Church, and main three categories?
Currently:

• Catholic Church (all 23 churches) - Roman Catholic Church, Christian organizations established in the 1st century, Holy See
• Latin Church (1 church) - Catholic terms, Roman Catholic Church organisation
• Catholic Eastern Churches (22 churches) - Eastern Catholicism, Roman Catholic Church organisation, Catholic terms, Chalcedonianism
• Category: Catholicism - Chalcedonianism, Christian denominational families, Western culture
• Category: Roman Catholic Church - Christian organizations established in the 1st century, Catholicism, Catholic denominations
• Category: Eastern Catholicism - Catholicism, Eastern Christianity

My proposal, with some but few changes:

• Category: Catholicism - Chalcedonianism, Christian denominational families, Western culture
• Category: Roman Catholic Church - Christian organizations established in the 1st century, Catholicism, Catholic denominations
• Catholic Church, hence Roman Catholic Church - Roman Catholic Church, Holy See
• Latin Church - Western Christianity, Catholic terms, Roman Catholic Church organisation
• Catholic Eastern Churches - Eastern Catholicism, Catholic terms, Roman Catholic Church organisation
• Category: Eastern Catholicism - Eastern Christianity

All categories included: Chalcedonianism, Christian denominational families, Western culture, Christian organizations established in the 1st century, Catholicism, Catholic denominations, Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church Organization, Holy See (which is included in Apostolic Sees), Western Christianity, Eastern Christianity, Catholic terms, Eastern Catholicism--Coquidragon (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The category Category:Eastern Christianity contains, among the usual suspects, those eastern rite churches in communion with Rome. Are they really eastern? Anyway, that particular argument was lost in a recent CFD. So the precedent has been set - a category can contain seemingly incongruous elements if at one time that element might have been part of the whole. It follows therefore that the eastern catholic rites in communion with the Holy Se are also part of the Western category since they are now part of the whole, even if they were at one time not part of it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is for the whole Catholic Church, both Western and Eastern. If you add one category, you should add both (Western and Eastern) for consistency. If not, the same way that Eastern Catholic Churches is included in Eastern Christianity, it is the Latin Church article which should be included in Western Christianity. This is what Esoglou, fist, and myself now, are trying to explain. Please read the description of the same category you are trying to add.

Can you please add a link to the CFD that you referring too? This way we can all work with he same information. Thanks in advance. Your point about categories and seemingly incongruous elements raise a good question. Will the addition of the Latin Church to the category suffice?--Coquidragon (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

CFD [here]. If the Latin rite particular churches can enter the Eastern Christianity category then the makes a mockery of that category. More than ever I'm convinced that both the Eastern and Western categories are ill conceived as there is so much leakage from one to the other. Both should be deleted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If, to paraphrase what you say, the Melkite Catholic Church, the Malankara Catholic Church, and similar paricular churches can enter the Westertn Christianity category, then that makes a mockery of that category. You may be right about trying to fit Catholic Church into either. But the category "Western Christianity" should be kept for Latin Church, Lutheranism, etc.; and the category "Eastern Christianity" should, according to common usage, be kept for Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, etc. I mention "common usage", because, if you speak with someone of the tradition of the Church of the East, as I have, you will find that they include the Byzantines under "Western Christianity". --Esoglou (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. So, in order not to make a mockery of the categories, but following the same reasoning behind the CFD, since the Roman Catholic Church is composed by churches both in Western and Eastern Christianity, and since the category Eastern Catholicism, under which Eastern Catholic Churches is located, is already included in Eastern Christianity, the addition of Latin Church to the Category Western Christianity should suffice. I have already added the category to the Latin Church accordingly. I have read your posts and understand where you are coming from. Thanks for raising this issue. --Coquidragon (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Two answers since we were both editing at the same time. --Coquidragon (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I would support including both Category:Western Christianity and Category:Eastern Christianity in the article (unless these are already included as part of existing categories). --Zfish118 (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Added said categories. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Catholic Church/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LeftAire (talk · contribs) 21:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I suppose that I'll start off as the reviewer of this article. I wouldn't be surprised if other reviewers came into the mix by the time this process is over, but I'll do what I can by aiming to give this article a thorough read, and check sources wherever I can. Please give me until roughly 7-8 days to read through this article; I should have some comments up by then. Thanks! LeftAire (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

After reading the article twice, I decided that due to the depth of this article, it would be best to divide the review this article in parts. This first review deals with the lead to the Virgin Mary and devotions subsection of the Doctrine section. Please bear with me, I'm still a relative novice at this craft!

• Regarding citations #9 and #10, please fix all of the links and re-assign them to the proper ones.

• Done; strange issue indeed. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• If the Assumption of Mary is already cited in the Virgin Mary subsection, it doesn't have to be in the lead. (possibly be a minor quibble of mine)

• Comment Left for now (cites in lead are a sticky issue, would like additional feedback). --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• 'The name "Catholic Church" is the most common designation used in official church documents' citation doesn't seem to point to this directly. Though this is likely true, if possible find a link or clarify the link given, please.

• Comment Concur that this reference is insufficient, no action yet taken --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Additionally, documents of other Churches, such as the Orthodox communion, may also refer to themselves as simply The Catholic Church, Therefore, it may be wise to use a more specific title for those in full communion with the Papacy.Ri Osraige (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment You shouldn't call the Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church, because there are Eastern Rites in addition to the Roman Rite. All are in full communion with the papacy. Calling the Catholic Church the "Roman Catholic Church" is like calling Britain "England". Most people think of the Roman Catholic Church when they hear "Catholic Church", but there is an important distinction. So let's remove the "also known as the Roman Catholic Church" from the article. NathanK1 (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment Added "primarily in English-speaking countries," to "Roman Catholic Church," since it is unusual for native speakers of languages associated with rites other than the Latin one - as well as for speakers of other languages such as Italian, French, and Spanish - to include the qualifier "Roman" in everyday conversation, nor is it usual (although by no means unheard-of) for the Vatican to include the qualifier "Roman" in documents intended for a non-English-speaking Catholic audience. Ivain (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Ivain (talk)

13:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Later addition: another editor deleted my addition, without discussion, except noted that a source was needed. So I added a source which I hope will answer all questions.

• Another editor reverted, referring to my contribution to Wikipedia as "Revert vandalism." (Note I'll be giving someone on the Board a quick email.)Ivain (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• There's a recurring theme throughout this article of section leads having and not having citations. Not sure how problematic that will be for this article reaching a GA status, but something to keep in mind.

• Comment For Feature Article status, consistency here would likely be important; for GA, I do not think it alone a bar, although minor work for consistency ought to continue. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment There is a feedback loop in the development of the lead sections; new content might be added to the lead that was not in the main body, or visa versa. Content in one section might be moved to another. "Sync'ing" the lead references with body content is a challenge! --Zfish118 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Add a citation for the first paragraph, in particular about Francis' election

• Done --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Period on the end of 'representatives'.

• Done --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Last citation of the first paragraph of the canon law subsection is a dead link.

• Comment/done Added note that a subscription is now required to access the article; added an additional citation to a free site. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Add citation 36 to the end of the second paragraph of the canon law subsection.

• Comment Links were updated since this was posted; uncertain which link you are referring to. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The last sentence of the second paragraph, sorry for my lack of specificity. LeftAire (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• A citation at the end of the first paragraph seems appropriate.

• Done (will address other points later) --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Use this link for the citation for the second paragraph rather than the one given. Western Church/Roman Catholicism. It should suffice for at least one of the sentences. Also, is it because of the continuity that (Roman) Catholicism claims with the Apostles of the New Testament the reason why that it considered itself to be the oldest and largest branch? Perhaps a more explicit link on the website can be found attesting to that statement. If not (or if a more suitable source cannot be found), rewrite/delete it.

• Done Added both essay to citation, removed vaguely stated "oldest and largest branch" --Zfish118 (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Citation for the last sentence of the last paragraph

Dioceses, parishes, and religious orders

• done --Zfish118 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Citations for the second (last sentence) and third paragraphs.

• done --Zfish118 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Could be a minor quibble, but for the second citation for the first sentence of the second paragraph, I had to read through quite a bit of material in order to find that link (Chapter II, Paragraph 14). Considering that other sources have the chapter (and paragraph if available) listed for the Catechism of the Catholic Church links and the like, it will better to make these type of citations more consistent in order to ease the ability to read and find the sources in the near future.

• Done Added paragraph to citation. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Possibly a citation for the Luther removal of scripture of the Catholic Bible? May remove scratch mark later.

• The phrase 'one True Church' is a phrase that isn't used explicitly in the citation given, but is with another source used on this page: THE CATECHISM OF ST. PIUS X . The other two phrases in quotation marks (the universal sacrament of salvation for the human race" and the "true religion") cannot be confirmed from that citation as of now. I'll re-read it again to make sure, but please find better citations for those last two if possible.

• Comment though I do not favor that phrasing, there had been a citation that explicitly stated "One, true church"; I do not know why it was removed. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• As for ex voto and baptism of blood, is the last section of paragraph 14 of the second chapter of Lumen Gentium supposed to have cover it? It seems more implied if anything...

• Done replace with citation to Catholic Encyclopedia (which I believe had formerly been there, but was inexplicably removed) --Zfish118 (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Virgin Mary and Devotions Nothing of note as of now. I was thinking about citations for the last section, though I wonder how necessary it really is.

First portion is done. I'll be back hopefully within the next 2 days or so with more information regarding the other sections. Please, feel free to contest and get advice from users/contributors, as I likely will do the same (my second GA review, and the first one of this significance). LeftAire (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I will review your comments in the coming days. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Western Rites

• The link from the first citation does not provide any information what is presented; find a citation that matches the information given.

• done; revised section to match a published source. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Please add a citation for the link about the Roman rites and the post-1969 Roman missal.

• Done, added two sources

• That information about the history of the revisions of the missal from some citations (in particular noting the changes of the missals from the different popes year by year, and the last sentence).
• I fixed a citation for the first sentence in the last paragraph, but a citation is needed for that last sentence.

• No citations for any of the information listed. Please find some for those paragraphs.

• Done Added two sources. Do not believe list needs a source (could be covered by OCE if needed)

Sacraments

• Although I can see the use of the citation from the Catholic Encylopedia, I'm not so keen about the CCC 1399 being used there. Could a better source be used?

• done^[1]

• 'Non-Catholics are ordinarily prohibitted from receiving the Eucharist as well' needs a citation; I may find a citation for this, but if you can before me, that's fine.

• done Added CoCC291, in addition to the existing source which elaborates.

• The ability of Eastern Catholic Churches to confirm infants citation doesn't seem to be affirmed from the link provided. (Was able to find an English source online 1990 CODE OF CANONS OF ORIENTAL CHURCHES to confirm it; my knowledge of Latin is very little)

• Comment Did you fix this one already? CCEO 695 seems spot on! --Zfish118 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Whoops...My mistake. LeftAire (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Anointing of the Sick

• A citation for paragraph, please.

• Done --Zfish118 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Please add a citation for the 'But after becoming a Roman Catholic priest, a man may not marry (see Clerical celibacy) unless he is formally laicised' sentence.
• The first citation of the second paragraph is a dead link.

• Done found live version

• The Only bishops and priests can administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Reconciliation (Penance) and Anointing of the Sick sentence needs new citations, as the ones given are not sufficient.

• The citation for the first sentence only speaks of charity, and not much else. Please find a better citation.

• done, "Social gospel" is a mostly Protestant view, so I removed that. Added a source for the rest. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Does the 'For those who are unmarried, particularly those called to the single life or celibacy, self-mastery and discipline, with the support of friendship, are the means of finding peace' refer to all in general or just to homosexuals (as it appears to be in the citation given, and in the Homosexuality section below)? If so, please find a better citation given.

• comment, Removed this sentence. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• The citations involving Pauline and Petrine privilege are repeated again. I do realize that the first instance of the citations used was used via footnote, but does it need to be repeated verbatim later?
• Perhaps provide some citations concerning the divorce law introductions for the countries listed and those w/out it.
• Remove the divorce law by country from the paragraph and perhaps add it to the Main Article section along with Annulment (Catholic Church

• Done (divorce law by country) --Zfish118 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Please either add the Catholic Church HIV/AIDS link either as part of the main article section under contraception like the suggestion for the previous section noted in this review or add it under the see also.

• Done --Zfish118 (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Also add a citation for the second paragraph with sentence that includes: 'there is significant controversy within and outside the church regarding the use of condoms as a means of limiting new infections, as condom use ordinarily constitutes prohibited contraceptive use'.

• Done --Zfish118 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Citation for the last sentence.
• The first sentence about IVF has a citation that is a dead link. Please find another citation.

• Comment while "live" sources are ideal, a reliable source need not be available online. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm...That's fair. LeftAire (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Social Services

• I would think that the last two paragraphs need some citations. I realize that the information given consists of names of organizations, however I still under the impression that citations are necessary.

• I think that the first citation given (though a very intriguing read on a personal level, my favorite of the citations listed so far) could be interpreted as being focused solely on the United States. Another citation showing the nuns impact outside of the States to highlight their worldwide impact would help.

• done added additional source.^[2]

Part two is finished *Sigh of Relief*.(Yay, I get to tackle the History section next!) Hopefully I'll have something up in the following days for the History section. Ask for more questions if you run into anything, I'll try to assist you wherever I can. Mind if I ask you if there are any other significant contributors to the article that can assist you? LeftAire (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• There have been several authors recently involved. The GA drive mostly finished around new years, so I image most moved on to other projects and would need to trickle back in. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Eh, the things that need to be fixed are relatively minor in contrast to the other two. I'll give a review below within the hour after re-reading again. LeftAire (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

For the history section, I have had very little to do with developing this section. My understanding, however, is that it has been pretty stable for several years now after being carefully trimmed to nearly its current length. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm back! Okay, here's all that needs to be done.

• Remove one of the two mentions of the East-West Schism in the Middle-Ages. Preferably, I'd remove it from the first section, and write something akin to the following: 'the tensions between Rome and Constantinople increased over the following centuries, highlighting with the Photian schism in the 8th century'. Considering the information the Reformation gets, I think it would be important to at least mention the most significant quarrel between eastern and western Christendom prior to 1054. I'll add that one myself.

• Comment It appears you have completed this! --Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Please add a citation/citations in the second, third and last paragraphs of the Medieval/Renaissance periods.
• I wondered if the Counter-Reformation needs more attention, but it kind of covers it with the Early Modern Period with the mention of the Jesuits among others (I thought that folks like Teresa of Avila should get attention, but Augustine didn't, so...Never mind it) The separation of the Reformation and the Early Modern Period sort of threw me off, since the former exists within the latter.

• Noted The history section is the most dizzying for me as well. I am uncertain how to best present it. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• A citation for the last paragraph of the Early Modern Period, though that section certainly doesn't count as "Early Modern". I suggest to change the subtitle to Early Modern and Modern Periods, too.

• Comment Based on the minor confusion you cited, I moved "Age of discovery" above the "Reformation"; slightly less jumping around the timeline now!--Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Add the link to Catholic Church and Contraception as a see also portion under the Second Vatican Council.

• Thank you! --Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• John Paul II probably needs a title change, too. Maybe Notable 20th Century figures.

• Comment In lieu of renaming, I moved the content about Mother Teresa and the other winner to "Social Services" (where Mother Teresa was already mentioned) --Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Citation for the first paragraph of the twenty-first century subsection.

• 'Done --Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I'm going to give the article another re-read. There are still a few other places where citations are needed, and after I go through and add said citations for those that I can find, you'll see some paragraphs that have the 'citation needed' link, hopefully within a few hours. Hope this process hasn't been too lengthy, but this article is a big one. I'll try to find citations for those that need it for the History section, but don't wait up, since you may beat me to it. LeftAire (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much! You have been exceptionally prompt, given the huge size and scope of this article (I did not expect anyone to get to it for several months actually). I've been working on and off on this article for a while now, and have never seen it better. Having fresh eyes look at all the citations really helps! --Zfish118 (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Zfish118 No problem! I am going to place a hold on the article within a few hours, but once I do the period given to fix issues with the article would be seven days. I need to check if anyone has responded to my question about citation usage for this article (I may have to officially request a second opinion), and there are still some unaddressed issues (among those citations). Would you be able to fix those issues within a week? This article doesn't have many other issues...LeftAire (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think I have addressed the majority of you concerns, including the remaining "citation needed" tags. I also added references for the services/aid organizations, just in case :p --Zfish118 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• I look forward to the remainder of your assessment! --Zfish118 (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• This article is almost ready for a pass. Just one more issue. The link from the citation given for this portion in the Nature of the Church -"the universal sacrament of salvation for the human race" and the "true religion"- doesn't provide the quotes given from the link given. Perhaps use the Lumen Gentium link to provide different citation of what the Catholic Church considers itself to be, or find a citation that actually states those two sources (reliable ones, of course). LeftAire (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed it! "Universal..." was originally a quote from the Catechism, but the Catechism cited two sources, and the wrong original source document was cited in the article; I put in the correct original source. "True religion" was not in either source, and I removed it as redundant. --Zfish118 (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

All right, then! It appears that everything has been handled, as I have taken care of the last bit of necessary citations. Congrats, this article has passed! Nice to see an article of this significance be recognized as one of the better articles. I don't know if you're pushing the article for a FA status, but I suggest a peer review beforehand if you decide to do so. LeftAire (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's been a few years since I edited anything on Wikipedia. I left quite disgusted over difficulties with this particular article. I see it was recently promoted to Good Article status. I just want to congratulate the editors here for persevering in their efforts to make this a decent Wikipedia page. Nice job! NancyHeise ^talk 01:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting such a complex topic through Wikipedia's Good Article criteria. It is fairly uncommon for such a general topic to pass. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

>Catholic social teaching emphasises support for the sick, the poor and the afflicted through the corporal works of mercy and the Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of education and medical services in the world.

Shouldn't this be "non-governmental" as it's an adjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.224.62 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone summarize the reason for this? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not ambiguous at all in my view. Most people understand that the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian church; some think it is the only church, some think it is one of many churches and some don't think it is a church at all. What do you think is so ambiguous about this sentence? Anglicanus (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

church, the link, is ambiguous. That's not good for the readers. Why can't it be disambiguated, or de-linked? Please don't make this more complicated than this basic question. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected the link from a disambiguation page to Christian denomination but the wording remains as "church" and not "demomination". It would have helped if you had mentioned that the previous link was to a disambiguation page as the word "church" was not really ambiguous in itself (except that it could also mean a building which is a place of worship). Afterwriting (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The edit history makes it clear I was trying to disambiguate the term. Thanks for the fix. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The new "State and Religion" section is a welcome addition. However, it has lacks explicit references to "WP:Reliable sources", and could be improved with added references to secondary sources, as well as line or paragraph numbers for quotes from the primary sources (the Vatican documents). --Zfish118 (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There is also an ambiguous date given "1986", is ("the Second Vatican Council's Declaration of Religious Freedom (1986)"). Is this a typo referring to 1968, or date for a document written in 1986 that references Dignitas Humana? --Zfish118 (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zfish118:I think some citations should be provided. It's the only major section w/o any, and it should be removed if none are provided, given that this article is a GA. LeftAire (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I could not find support for this assertion in the source given, which is on Google Books. Elizium23 (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I just removed the intro section's paragraph on criticism of Catholicism, bringing the article into line with the pages for other faith groups. Correctus2kX (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're going to need a better argument for removing the paragraph than that. You're removing an informative, useful paragraph on the basis that other articles don't have one - that isn't good enough. I'm reinstating the paragraph until a decision is made here. -- Hazhk (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Albeit the most obvious and harsh criticism has been from Protestants, perhaps that should be mentioned? Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed to refocus discussion; see new section below

---

Org Template (infobox)

While very obviously good faith, the organizational template added has several issues. For one, Jesus as founder is far from uncontroversial, and no single source could be adequate for such a bold claim in a template. Two, there is no "official" website for the "Catholic Church" (The Vatican.va is the official website of the Pope/Holy See). There is no single (earthly at least) corporate entity known as the Catholic Church [that could possess its own website]. It would be more accurate to describe it as hundreds/thousands of local entities, all fiducially obedient to the Pope. [There could be thousands of official webpages for entities within the church, but not Catholic Church itself!] --Zfish118 (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The Vatican in the person of the Pope is the ultimate governing body of the Catholic Church, and accordingly the Vatican's website is the de facto website of the worldwide Catholic Church. And because every diocese and every parish is under the absolute authority of the Pope, there is one corporate entity that is the Catholic Church rather than thousands of individual parishes that are local entities with no governance above the parish level. The Pope can make any decision pertaining to every Catholic parish even though he can delegate that responsibility to others such as Bishops. I'm not sure what you mean by "fiducially obedient to the Pope", but if you are suggesting that the Pope does not have "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered", you are wrong. Regarding the statement that Jesus Christ is the founder, that parameter can be worded "According to the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ"; that should remove any controversy. Sundayclose (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that the infobox template, clearly added to help improve the article, unfortunately over simplifies the rich and complex history of the church, and is redundant to the existing and long standing "Catholic Church series" template that provides links to detailed articles for each topic. The information in the infobox also repeats much of the content within the article lead. The Catholic Church article underwent considerable work in the past year or two to reach "Good Article" status, and I do not believe this infobox template is the best way to keep it there. --Zfish118 (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

(As a small note, by "fiduciary duty", all I meant was the duty for dioceses, etc, to manage their property and actions according to the Pope's will. This was a distracting tangent, meant only help explain why the Church does not have an "official website"; I apologize for the distraction and poor phrasing. --Zfish118 (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC))

Zfish118, your arguments in edit summaries are not consistent with your argument here. What exactly is not sourced in the infobox? The answer is that everything in the infobox is sourced. All of your initial claims about the website, the corporate entity, and the controversy about founder are fully refuted. You now argue that the infobox "simplifies the rich and complex history of the church." No infobox in any article can avoid that because infoboxes are meant to be very brief. You are left with the argument that there is redundancy with another template. Look at other articles on Christian denominations. Many have the Christian denomination infobox as well as other relevant templates, with some redundancy. There is no policy that prohibits more than one relevant infobox. It's fine for you to have the opinion that the infobox detracts from good article status, but given the weakness and inconsistency of some of your arguments, your opinion is one of several opinions (mine, the editor who initially added the infobox, and the editor who first reverted your removal), none of which support removing the infobox. Please wait for a consensus before removing the infobox for a third time. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I simply have a life outside of Wikipedia. When I made the edit removing, I had not decided exactly which arguments I would use on the talk page. I have spent hundreds of hours editing this page, and have moved on to other projects. The number of possible arguments are very large.

• Jesus Christ as founder is simply unacceptable. What about Saint Paul? Saint Peter? Columbus in the New World. There is no single founder for an organization as large and complex as the Catholic Church.
• We had long discussion on similar matter about a year ago, about whether it was acceptable to call Saint Peter the first "Pope". The Consensus we reached was that Saint Peter was an early leader in Rome, and that his office could arguably be traced to evolve into the modern Papacy. This required at least several paragraphs to describe, and a great deal of compromise, discussion, and argument.
• No one here denies that Jesus Christ was instrumental in founding Christianity, and by extension the institutional Catholic Church. It is however, an insurmountable biased view to say he founded the Catholic Church in particular. The Catholic Church claims to be exclusively founded by Jesus, to the exclusion of all others. The infobox cannot possibly describe this adequately.
• The "governance" is not the "Roman Curia". This tab is meant to illustrate governance style (specifically religious polity). The Catholic Church is Episcopalian by nature, meaning it is governed by the bishops.
• Citing other religious denominations is not helpful for precedent, as very few others have achieved or kept "Good Article" status. There are few conventions that are generally accepted.
• Looking through several, the infobox appear to mostly appropriately. On the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a very nice example, as does Church of God in Christ.
• A directly comparable example might be Anglican Communion. This organization has a very discrete history, and clear legal secular continuity. The Anglicanism, article, the top level, would be problematic to add a "denomination" infobox to. Who would the founder be? They claim direct descent from Jesus, too. King Henry VIII? What about his ministers? What about early Protestant rumblings that King Henry took advantage of for political and religious ends?
• The Catholic Church is both an historic movement within Christianity, as well as a modern Christian denomination with clear legal boundaries. This was not always the case. Various individual parishes, dioceses, and national churches have entered and broken communion with Rome. It is entirely subjective point of view as to which side was right.

Finally, my only conclusion here is that the infobox is not appropriate for this particular article. I believe it was added in very good faith effort to improve the article, but I do not believe that it is needed, nor that sufficient corrections could be made to make it acceptable. Nearly every edit I've made to this page has been edited and usually improved by others. This reversion is not personal in anyway.

Without careful stewardship, this article will become overwhelmed by well meaning but poor quality edits. This has happened several times in the Catholic Church article's history. Look at its 2004 version compared to the 2008, 2010, 2012 versions. It has been built up, torn down, built up again. By being recognized as a "Good Article", it is somewhat expected that the article remain stable. What the article needs is ongoing maintenance and incremental improvements, not further major additions to its structure.

I would encourage you to look deeply through this article's content to find gaps in coverage, poor referencing, and other issues. Such efforts would go a long way towards making this a WP:Feature article! --Zfish118 (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledging your "good faith" is not a suicide compact. Stop assuming ownership and edit warring and wait for a consensus here because so far you have no support in this consensus discussion.

• "Jesus Christ as founder is simply unacceptable." According to the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ is the sole founder of the Catholic Church. That is sourced in the article, and I changed the wording of the infobox to reflect that the claim is "according to the Catholic Church". You are confusing controversy about whether the Catholic Church is correct in its assumptions with the incontrovertible claim that the RC Church considers Christ the only founder. Of course other denominations disagree with the RC Church, but that does not diminish what the RC Church itself claims. Please provide reliable sources that clearly contradict that the Catholic Church considers anyone else as the founder of the Catholic Church (which does not refer to those who maintained and expanded the church after its founding).
• "Various individual parishes, dioceses, and national churches have entered and broken communion with Rome." And such parishes, dioceses, and national churches are not a part of the Roman Catholic Church once they break communion with the Pope. Again, cite reliable sources that any parish or diocese not in communion with Rome is part of the Roman Catholic Church. Once again you are confusing controversy about whether Catholic beliefs are "right or wrong" with the issue of what the Catholic Church believes and practices. The article is about the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church, not about whether the RC Church or any other church is "right or wrong." There are a lot of places on the internet to debate about whether Catholic beliefs are right or wrong; this article is not one of them, nor is any Wikipedia article about religions.
• "The Catholic Church is Episcopalian by nature, meaning it is governed by the bishops." All bishops function at the pleasure of the Pope, who can overrule any decision by any bishop in the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, the Pope can appoint or remove any bishop at any time at his sole discretion. Again, the Pope has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered". That clearly means that the Pope has absolute authority over all bishops. Other denominations with bishops may be governed by bishops, but the Roman Catholic Church is governed by the Pope and only the Pope. Bishops advise; bishops are delegated authority by the Pope; bishops do not govern the RC Church. Please cite reliable sources to the contrary.

Now again, Zfish118, please follow the consensus process as prescribed by Wikipedia policies, stop edit warring, and wait for a consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Church
Coat of arms of the Holy See.
Orientation	Catholicism
Governance	Roman Curia
Leader	Pope Francis
Region	Worldwide
Founder	Jesus Christ
Origin	1st century Jerusalem, Judea, Roman Empire
Members	1.25 billion[1]
Official website	http://www.vatican.va/

Arbitrary break

My issue is solely that the material you are adding incorrect material, repeatedly. I am attempting to explain some of the issues, and may not be doing a good job doing so, but it is YOUR duty to add correct, verifiable material. When material is disputed, it is the party adding the content that has the burden of proof. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Everything in the infobox is sourced in the article: The Catholic Church's claim that Jesus Christ is the founder is sourced. The sole governance by the Pope as implemented through the Roman Curia is sourced. The Pope's absolute authority over the Catholic Church is sourced; the authority of bishops individually or collectively as superior to that of the Pope is not sourced. I have asked you to provide reliable sources for some of your claims in the section above. Provide those, and then we may have something to discuss. Sundayclose (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me step back, because I am truly baffled by the controversy here... A few days ago, @Chicbyaccident:, in his edit summary, stated that he was proposing an infobox, and I removed it, noting in a hopefully friendly manner on the talk page that I did not think it was of sufficient quality. I do wish to apologize, because up until reading your entry on Mirokado's talkpage, I mistakenly believed that you (Sundayclose) were the author of the infobox, and I was becoming increasingly frustrated with how personal you seemed to be taking a reversion that I considered perfectly routine. And to Chicbyaccident, I've browsed some of your recent contributions, and find them generally helpful, and wish to encourage you to continue. I apologize to you as well for the drama stemming from my misattribution of authorship. I put a lot of work into this page and I am glad to see people willing to take care of it. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not the author of the infobox; I never gave the infobox much thought until you assumed you had authority to remove it without consensus. I have taken nothing personally in this discussion; I'm not sure whether you have. My motivation is not baffling; it's simple. I think the infobox is appropriate for this article. I think everything in the infobox is properly sourced. I think you have provided nothing to back up any of your claims except your personal opinion, and that you have failed to provide a single source that I requested above for some of these claims. I think you have repeatedly confused controversy about whether Catholic beliefs are "right or wrong" with the issue of what the Catholic Church believes and practices (e.g., what the RC Church believes about the founder of the Church vs. whether the RC Church is right or wrong in that belief; which side is "right or wrong" in disputes between the RC Church and churches that have broken away from the RC Church). I think that confusion is one of the bases of this dispute (which baffles me). I think you are misinformed about some blatantly false information (e.g., bishops "govern" the Catholic Church; there is no corporate entity that is the Catholic Church; the Vatican's website cannot be considered the website of the worldwide Catholic Church). I think that so far you have no support for removing the infobox. I think so far there are at least three editors who do not object to inclusion of the infobox. Sundayclose (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not assume I "had authority to remove it without consensus." That is not a good faith assumption. I actually posted my concerns on the talk page several hours before I removed the box. Farsight001 happened to miss the entry (hence the confusion in his edit summary). I renamed the section to ensure it was not missed again.

• Talk page entry discussing original removal (15:17, 22 October 2015]
• Original removal of infobox (22:14, 21 October 2015 --Zfish118 (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, since the box was up for only a few days, it should have stayed down until there was consensus to restore it. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, since you reverted three editors who decided it should stay in the article, it should have remained without consensus to remove it. And speaking of not assuming good faith, your assumption that I was the author of the infobox and thus opposed the removal of the infobox for personal reasons rather than what I considered best for the article was hardly assuming good faith. So let's call that an even score and wait to see whether anyone else supports removal of the infobox. In the mean time, it would be very helpful if you would provide some reliable sources for your claims in the section above that I have requested. Sundayclose (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Issue#2; I would recommend you become familiar with this discussion from two years ago Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_53: "History Section" - "GA Drive?". This discussion resulted in the current consensus that started the "Good Article" drive. Critical to this consensus was carefully representing Saint Peter from all perspectives. I very strongly believe that the representation of Jesus as "founder", without qualification, runs counter to this long, hard fought consensus. While consensus can indeed change, a few authors expressing indifference to the info box is hardly evidence of such change. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the infobox (as I modified it} does not represent Jesus Christ as the founder. The infobox represents the Catholic belief that Christ is the founder. What is it about that distinction that you can't understand? And I had, in fact, already read the section of the archives that you have told me to "become familiar with", and that section makes a clear distinction between what the Catholic Church believes and "absolute facts of history", which is exactly what I have stated repeatedly. Thanks for reminding us that I'm not the only one who can make that distinction. Sundayclose (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Replying, "In the mean time, it would be very helpful if you would provide some reliable sources for your claims in the section above that I have requested." I do not believe that would be helpful. I was making only a few general historical observations, and do not dispute the majority of what you stated in reply. My purpose for providing that context seems lost, and I wish to drop the issue. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

If you don't wish to back up your claims with reliable sources and instead "drop the issue" that is your choice, but dropping the issue doesn't help your arguments for removing the infobox. Sundayclose (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

1. ^ "Vatican statistics report church growth remains steady worldwide". National Catholic Reporter. 2 May 2015. Retrieved 1 July 2015.

Arbitrary break 2

The problem is that the scope of my concerns is very narrow, and not actually involving any doctrine. I brought up a few points originally. You attacked them. I tried explaining a little more as a courtesy. You attacked them. I got angry, you got angry, etc.

My concerns are primarily aesthetic. I do not believe the template is of high enough quality right now to warrant inclusion. It could be improved, and I would not likely not object to an improved version. I only oppose it in its current state. I moved it to the talk page (never deleted it), in part, so that anyone interested might improve it. I also happen to think it is unnecessary and redundant, but would be willing to consider a higher quality version.

The "Jesus" issue, for instance, could be resolved by simply not filling in the founder field. The "region=worldwide" is unnecessary. Adding specific information, such as number of countries it is might be helpful. I discovered there is a separate field for "polity" in addition to "governance"; the polity tag could be set to "Episcopal", and then the governance set to "Holy See". I would also prefer a different image be selected. This image looks pixilated at its current resolution, and the image of Saint Peter's basilica was selected as a kind of internal branding, so that all Catholic related articles would be recognizable. This image was selected long before I was a part of Wikipedia, and would prefer that it stay prominent on the gateway article to all Catholic topics. If more fields could be filled such as perhaps numbers of clergy/religious, number of dioceses, important internal divisions (Latin and Eastern Catholic), the template has potential to become very valuable. However, because this page is so visible, this development should occur in draft space, to avoid frequent changes to the public facing content. I do not have the time to do this anymore, and so moved it to the talkpage so that if the original author or any other interested party could make such improvements if they desired. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have finally narrowed your concerns to aesthetics rather than doctrine. I never "attacked" anything, nor do I think that you "attacked" anything. I refuted your points with facts. I did not get angry. Only you know whether you got angry. The "Jesus as founder" issue does not require leaving the parameter blank; it simply needs clarification that the RC Church considers Jesus the founder, which is the way it is as I revised it. I don't have a problem with changing governance to Holy See. I disagree with removal of region=worldwide; it's a legitimate parameter and worldwide is a fact. I'll reserve judgment about image and other issues until I see more details. We need more opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Response

@Sundayclose: you claim to have been civil this whole time, but you have been nothing but. Let me explain this in detail. My concerns were always aesthetic. I said so right at the beginning:

My concern is that the infobox template, clearly added to help improve the article, unfortunately over simplifies the rich and complex history of the church, and is redundant to the existing and long standing "Catholic Church series" template that provides links to detailed articles for each topic. The information in the infobox also repeats much of the content within the article lead. The Catholic Church article underwent considerable work in the past year or two to reach "Good Article" status, and I do not believe this infobox template is the best way to keep it there.

Bottom line, I thought the template was of low quality, removed it, and placed a comment on the talkpage explaining my concerns (another editor innocently did not see my note of the removal). This is an ordinary act of editing. You have repeatedly maligned my motives, accused me of "owning the page", edit warring and violating "consensus" over removing a template that had only been there a few days, and few had noticed yet. There were a few miscommunicated reverts, but never edit warring.

From the get-go, you threw accusations, such as "I'm not sure what you mean by "fiducially obedient to the Pope", but if you are suggesting that the Pope does not have "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered", you are wrong." I politely tried to explained a simple line I stated, and you started "rebutting" that, even though it was not my argument, and no longer relevant to discussion of the template. I try explaining some of the complex vocabulary that was misused on the template, and you started rebutting that, making an ass of yourself because you did not realize that you were misunderstanding.

I am not going to reward your incivility. I am going to delete the template, and report you for vandalism if you restore it without considerable modification.

This template may only be restored by an uninvolved editor. This dispute is pointless, and must not continue. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't help your case for you to make this a personal issue between you and me. I have not been uncivil. I have refuted your points with facts; that's not uncivil. Telling you that "you are wrong" when in fact you are wrong, is not uncivil. It is simply factually wrong to claim that bishops govern the Catholic Church (one of several examples); telling you that is not uncivil. It is not a personal statement about you; it is simply correcting a false assumption. On the other hand, suggesting that my motives were personal rather than an interest in what's best for the article could be considered uncivil, but I'll let everyone reach their own conclusions. And it's fine for you to claim that your concern has always been aesthetic, and I'll accept that in good faith. That said, anyone who can understand English can clearly see your doctrinal arguments made numerous times above. I don't say that to impugn your honesty, just to let others see why I felt compelled to refute your doctrinal arguments.

We were getting closer to some agreement on what should be included in the template. I seriously thought the next step was to wait for more opinions and hammer out the details that remain. It's very disappointing to see you now violating 3RR and making wild threats about deleting the template (with no consensus) and making reports of vandalism (this is a content dispute, not vandalism), and pronouncing in bold who can and cannot restore the template. The Wikipedia community decides whether this template stays, not a single editor whether that is you or me. I appreciate your previous efforts at coming to some understanding. However, I strongly urge you not to act without consensus by making a 5th revert (even after 24 hours) and to wait to see if removal of the template gets any additional support here. I don't intend to edit war even if you unilaterally decide to assume ownership on this issue. But I also don't intend to sit back idly and let someone run roughshod over the standard Wikipedia consensus process. In the interest of trying to maintain a civil discussion here, for now I will ignore your violation of 3RR and not make a report; but I won't ignore continued edit warring. For the sake of the article as well as your own reputation, I ask you politely to please calm down and wait for other opinions. There is a well developed process on Wikipedia for resolution of content disputes. I always respect a clear consensus, in this case even if the ultimate consensus is to remove the template. Right now that consensus doesn't exist. Sundayclose (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Response to Farsight001 and Sundayclose

My original issue was the unsourced controversial claims introduced in the infobox. It is your singular opinion that they are "adequately sourced" elsewhere. No one else has weighed in on that matter, not even @Farsight001: who most recently restored the infobox. Per WP:PROVEIT, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." It is not edit warring to refuse to allow unsourced material to be posted; it is at best Wikipedia:TEDIOUS tedious your part to continually restore unsourced material. This can be somewhat amicably resolved if the infobox were removed until adequate sources for all disputed content were added. I have aesthetic concerns as well, but my primary concern about the lack of sources has been repeatedly buried by your attempts to disprove my non-arguments. --Zfish118 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: WP:TEDIOUS was inappropriate. This is an isolated line that I find to not reflect Neutral POV, not a pattern of content being added. I misunderstood the scope of the policy essay. My apologies. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Zfish, everything in the infobox is sourced in the article. We have been over this many, many times. The Catholic Church's belief that Jesus is the founder is sourced. Your suggestion, governance by the Holy See, is sourced. Area=worldwide is sourced. Number of members is sourced. One editor repeating the same arguments over and over does not make a consensus and is disruptive to Wikipedia; apparently the only way we will be able to get you to stop this incessant, repetitive request for sources that are already there is to ignore you. Consensus to remove the infobox will be determined if enough editors express than opinion with convincing arguments. I am not continuing to rehash your request for sources over and over and over. It's sourced. I'm finished responding to that issue, so repeat it as many times as you wish; your claim of unsourced has been answered multiple times. The fact that Farsight has not "weighed in" here is superfluous; Farsight has restored the template twice; that speaks for itself. And I'm not going to repeatedly "weigh in" on something that has been addressed and answered repeatedly. I suggest you not interpret my or anyone's silence on this matter as not having an opinion. Please describe any additional aesthetic issues and if I have an opinion I will express it here. Otherwise you and I are finished on the "unsourced" issue. Sundayclose (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Fiduciary duty"

At the very beginning of this discussion, I wrote in part:

While very obviously good faith, the organizational template added has several issues. ... Two, there is no "official" website for the "Catholic Church" (The Vatican.va is the official website of the Pope/Holy See). There is no single (earthly at least) corporate entity known as the Catholic Church [that could possess its own website]. It would be more accurate to describe it as hundreds/thousands of local entities, all fiducially obedient to the Pope. ...

I probably could have written this passage better, so I wish explain what I had meant now. Misinterpretations seem to be the root cause of the long argument above. In Canon Law, the Catholic Church recognizes "Physical Persons" and "Juridic Persons". Physical persons are Human beings, and juridic persons are equivalent to corporations authorized by the church; these include individual diocese, parishes, etc, where groups of people are formally organized. The Church herself is called a "Moral Person", because it is incorporated by God himself in the Catholic view. While individual dioceses and parishes are often incorporated locally under secular law, I am not aware of a secular corporation representing the Church itself. According to both Catholic law and secular laws, these entities have an obligation to faithfully serve the Pope. The word "fiduciary" itself is of Latin origins meaning "faithful duty".

The Holy See is also considered a "Moral Person", distinct, but integral to the Church. All I meant I meant by the sentence in question was that the Holy See is a separate entity from the church itself, under both church and secular law, and that it is misleading to state that the "church" has an official website. This was a relatively minor quibble that I had with the infobox template, and I perhaps should have elaborated more on my concern about the Jesus as founder issue. I feel that due to misunderstandings and confusion over this paragraph, the argument got side tracked and tangled, as we talked past each other. --Zfish118 (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

One thing with which I agree is that the issue (whatever it is beneath the legalistic interpretations) is minor. In fact, trivial in terms of its importance to the infobox. That's not a personal criticism, just a statement regarding the issue. As I have said, the Vatican's website is the de facto website of the worldwide Catholic Church. Thanks for your clarification. Sundayclose (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to propose a truce. I am prepared to admit I may have attributed to malice on your part to misunderstanding several poorly phrased arguments of mine. For this, and my subsequent anger, I would like to apologize. If you are willing to admit to misunderstandings and subsequent responses on your part that at least appeared provocative, I would better trust your intentions and would be willing to withdraw the dispute resolution, and allow the neutrality issue and other minor template issues to be resolved over time through normal editing and consensus building. (I am not conceding that the issue does not exist, but only that it is not necessarily urgent). Would this be acceptable to you? --Zfish118 (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer, I think you are sincere, and I mean no disrespect. But you are asking me to admit to something that is not true. You may have misinterpreted it as true, but I know what my thoughts and feelings were, and I know what I did and did not do. Anyone can be subject to misunderstanding. I'm not sure if I misunderstand anything on the "fiduciary duty" issue simply because it got tangled up in legalistic interpretations, but as we have both said that issue is relatively minor, and I am quite willing to apologize if I misunderstood that point. Apart from that, I have never been angry as you have told me I was, I was never uncivil as you have told me I was, I never "vandalized" as you threatened to report, I have never tried to make this was a personal issue between you and me, and I never assumed that you "attacked" anything as you said you did. We both may be guilty of assuming bad faith at moments, but I don't think either one of us was extreme. All of that being said, I am quite willing to discuss any issues regarding the template. But I don't plan to repeatedly respond to your statements about something not being sourced when in fact it is sourced. I understand that you may disagree with inclusion of something in the template even if it is sourced, and your opinion is as important as anyone's (but not more important). But "shouldn't be in the template" is not the same as "unsourced". I would also ask you to clarify whether your concerns are doctrinal, sourcing, inappropriate content, aesthetics, or some combination of those, because my impression is that changed back and forth several times; that may just be my impression. Very importantly, we need more opinions and that may take time, so we need to give it the time it takes. As I have said or suggested more than once, one person does not make a consensus whether that is you or me. To avoid future misunderstandings (without any aspersion toward you), nothing I have written in this response is meant to suggest that I think you or anyone has the authority to remove the template without a clear consensus (equally, if a clear consensus to remove it emerges, I or no one has the authority to restore it). I sincerely hope that if you don't agree with everything I have written in this response that you will not "throw the baby out with the bath water" by getting upset, making accusations, and acting without consensus because frankly I have a life in the real world and I don't have the time and will not take the time to respond to such. Thanks for your efforts. I do genuinely believe that both of us are motivated by what we think is best for the article. After you express any remaining concerns, I think one of the best things each of us can do is to back off for a while on this issue (here or on any other page) and wait for more opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I don't think withdrawal of the case at the dispute resolution noticeboard is necessary (remember, it was you who posted it). As I have said, we need more opinions. If the DRN case produces a credible opinion, that might be helpful for either of our cases. In fact, we need more than one more opinion; this is a very important article and as you have pointed out has GA status. I feel confident that others will express opinions after the dust settles here. Sundayclose (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I accept your explanation. I agree that letting the dust settle and waiting for more opinions is the way forward. I will continue the discussion at the DNR. --Zfish118 (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

And thank you for putting what's best for the article above personal feelings. Sundayclose (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Sundayclose: Regarding this edit. There is already lots of information in this article. Why does the above have to be specified as such? Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

An "about" note is for someone looking for another article who may not want to read this article. The words "broad term about specific traditions of Christian theology, liturgy and spirituality" quickly tells them they can find information about that term at Catholicism without having to read Catholic Church. Wikipedia is written for the reader, and the information makes it easier for the reader. That's worth the extra 11 words that you removed. Sundayclose (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess some limitation ought to be in that bar - if not, why aren't further elaborating with detailed specifications? Well, logically, statements in the head bar should be minimal as to let the article be about what the article is about. To the level of having every single word in that bar well-motivated. Are you phrase really motivated? Perhaps from a perspective of implied criticism, bit of like a warning statement. Other than that, I wouldn't agree with you. I guess we need other people's opinions. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but is your native language English? I understood very little of your last comment. But if you and I disagree about the "about" note, I do agree with you that we need more opinions before making your change. Thanks for your discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, then I believe I made myself understood. Please excuse my language. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but you didn't make yourself understood. Let's wait for more opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this, but I feel the current hatnote is sufficient. Think of a reader coming to this page looking for Catholicism#Distinctive beliefs and practices (a section that's not covered here that one might reasonably come to this page looking for). After reading a paragraph that this article is only about that church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, the reader's next stop is Catholic Church (disambiguation) (already linked) and from there she can easily find Catholicism. WP:1HAT tells us that it's preferable to link to one dab page than to individual articles listed on that dab page. Achowat (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So, let's talk about specifics. I suggest re-writing that hatnote to say: "This article is about the specific institution led by the Pope. For other uses, see Catholicism or Catholic Church (disambiguation)." This keeps (a) the gist of current hatnotes, (b) replaces "Holy See" with "Pope" (which is more accurate since it is the man that has the authority not the jurisdiction and which as least as well known as and probably better known than "Holy See"), and (c) removes link to Roman Catholic Church which I think we can move to "Name" section.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Better. Why not: "This article is about the church headed by the Pope. For other uses, see Catholic Church (disambiguation) or Catholicism or ." Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean, "full communion with the Holy See" is a good Catholic phrase, but I can definitely see why 'headed by the Pope' would be an easier concept to get readers to the article they're looking for. Achowat (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I changed the first sentence to "church headed by the Pope". So what about the rest of the note? In order to not have the full two paragraph notice ressembling a minor Russian novel, how could we shorten it? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Catholicism and Roman Catholic Church are both found on Catholic Church (disambiguation). I don't know that any' of the Russian novel is necessary. WP:ONEHAT makes this argument for me pretty succinctly. Achowat (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

→It is important to keep in mind that "Roman Catholic Church" is an alternative title for this article that redirects here, and its hatnote should remain at the top so that anyone looking for the Roman Catholic Church article knows that they ended up at the right one. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The hatnotes are helpful. Going to disambiguation page is, in my opinion, not the better way. Wikipedia has a searchbox for finding things that may not be where someone assumes it will be. The specific hatnote in this case points to a very closely related article. That is good for the user. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC); corrected signature 03:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you give me a proof that the Catholic Church claims herself as a denomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.82.76 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of the infobox in this article is not determined by what the Catholic Church claims. It is determined by policy and consensus here. See the lengthy discussions above and do not remove again without consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the information in the infobox should be limited to historical claims. The only citation in the article citing Jesus Christ as the founder is a Catholic source in the lead section describing the Catholic Church as the "one true church" founded by Jesus, which is a doctrinal claim subject to dispute by other Christian groups. In the history section, it is only stated that Jesus founded Christianity, and then doctrinal point from the lead section is repeated (using the same source as in the lead). I do not believe there is sufficient sourcing within the article to support the claim in the infobox that Jesus is the direct historical founder of the Catholic Church, and I do not believe that the qualifier "according to Catholic Tradition" is appropriate there. In the discussion regarding Saint Peter (Archive 53: "History Section" - "GA Drive?"), we eventually agreed that phrasing such as "according to Catholic Tradition" was not appropriate in isolation from other mainstream opinions in the history section. I am also uncertain whether the statement that the modern Catholic Church originated directly in 1st Century Judea is explicitly cited in the article. On these issues, I would like other opinions. I have also expressed concerns about factual errors in the template and other minor issues, but I have corrected most of these, and do not feel they need further discussion. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for jumping into muddy waters, but can I ask the value of listing a founder in the infobox, at all. I mean, the church's teachings are in the lede and in the section 'Nature of the Church'. I just don't see what additional value is added when listed in the infobox, especially when it's a contentious point. Achowat (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that usage of the phrase "according to the Catholic Tradition" should be limited, and seems not appropriate here, given the article does not adequately support the claim and does not explain alternatives. Dropping the "founder" item from the infobox would be an improvement, or dropping the infobox. The infobox seems low quality and detracts rather than adds value to the article.

Another issue with the infobox is that for governance it gives Holy See, which appears odd to me. Holy See's infobox indicates its jurisdiction is Vatican City. This does not seem to be high quality information, I think the item should be dropped or the whole infobox should be dropped. --doncram 12:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the information is at best awkwardly introduced by the infobox, and would agree that either solution might be a way to improve the article. I would recommend, however, moving the box to the talkpage rather outright deletion, if this were the chosen course. I would also like to note that the infobox on the Holy See page is also awkwardly phrased. The term Holy See refers to the "seat" of Papal authority over the Catholic Church. The territorial "jurisdiction" it has over the Vatican City enclave in Rome is but one function of that body, and improvements should likely be made to that infobox as well. --Zfish118 (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Church series template is more informative. The governance should be episcopal, there may confusion between the civil state of Vatican City and the religious polity of the Catholic Church with its administrative structures. There is many centuries of history and changing understanding about how to describe it. Nevertheless, the founder, it seems to me, was Jesus – no Jesus, no Church – for comparison, Buddhism shows Gautama Buddha as its founder and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints shows Joseph Smith. The Assyrian Church of the East shows specific Apostles as founders. Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria shows a specific Apostle as founder. Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch shows specific Apostles as founders. Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem shows "the Apostles" as founders. Those do not show problems about identifying founders, or the historicity of the founders. A search of this article's archive pages for "founder" and search of this article's archive pages for "origin" shows identifying a founder was previously brought up as was how to describe its origin. Maybe adding an {{faq}} section first would help to revisit the past discussions. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC); modified 13:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again, the Catholic Church is governed by the Pope; bishops assist him at his discretion but never without his absolute approval. This is not a matter of confusion between the civil state of Vatican City and the religious denomination of the Catholic Church. See my comments in the section above: Talk:Catholic Church#Org Template (infobox). Having bishops is not the same thing as governed by bishops. This is one of the most fundamental doctrines of the Catholic faith and one that distinguishes it from other Christian denominations. Let me try to simplify this. No bishop in the Episcopal Church USA has any more authority over church matters nationwide than any other bishop. But one person in the Catholic Church has absolute authority over all other bishops worldwide, and he can appoint or remove them at his sole discretion; he can override any majority vote of bishops (as was done in Vatican II); no other bishop can legitimately take any action in church matters if the Pope forbids him to do so. To state that "bishops govern the Catholic Church" is a gross distortion of Catholic doctrine and practice. If you disagree, please provide reliable sources to the contrary. Sundayclose (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: I am not arguing with you, I understand the development of bishops and the development of popes, I agree with most of your opinion. An {{faq}} would help other editors with topical insight. There is a common confusion about Vatican City and the Catholic Church – a confusion over one person holding two concurrent offices, one ecclesial and one civil, akin to civil personal union. The Holy See's jurisdiction is not Vatican City; the Holy See is ecclesial; Vatican City is a civil absolute monarchy. Both employ bishops who may also hold concurrent ecclesial and civil offices, e.g. titular see and President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Nor do I disagree with anything you said in your comments above except the specific statement "The governance should be episcopal". That is simply wrong in reference to the Catholic Church, and infobox pertains to the Catholic Church rather than the political entity of Vatican City. The infobox is for "Christian denomination" rather than "Geopolitical entity". So the Governance parameter of the infobox cannot be changed to "Episcopal". There may be accurate ways to describe the Pope's governance of the Catholic Church other than "Holy See", but "Episcopal" is not one of them because that clearly implies that there is no higher authority than the bishops. So change from "Holy See" to Pope, Papal, Bishop of Rome, or some other descriptor of papal authority, but not Episcopal. Thanks for the clarification, and I hope now we are in complete agreement. Sundayclose (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sundayclose:: "Episcopal" here has a technical meaning. It refers to the existence of bishops within the hierarchy, but does not imply anything about their relative authority. This term is meant to classify the Catholic Church as one with an episcopal polity (as opposed to an ecclesial community with a congregational polity for example). In the specific case of the Catholic Church, the Pope's authority stems from his election to the bishopric, the Holy See, of Saint Peter. All other Catholic bishops are subordinate to the Bishop of the Holy See, who is seated in the Diocese of Rome. The Catholic Church considers its episcopal character (with valid orders) to be an essential trait of the Church. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with you that the polity is episcopal, but the governance clearly is not episcopal. Polity and governance are separate parameters in the infobox. I don't disagree that "the Catholic Church considers its episcopal character (with valid orders) to be an essential trait of the Church", but that is an altogether different issue than governance. Other non-Catholic churches consider their orders valid (and in fact the RC Church acknowledges that in some cases they are valid); their polity is episcopal and their governance is episcopal. But the issue of valid orders is not the same issue as the absolute authority of the Pope, an issue that is distinctly part of the Roman Catholic church. That is the very reason that bishops or churches that do not ackonwledge the authority of the Pope are not considered in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. That is one the main factors that distinguishes Eastern Catholic Churches from Eastern Orthodox Churches. The issues of polity and governance should not be confused in the infobox because they certainly aren't confused by the Catholic Church. The governance of the Catholic Church is the Pope, and that distinguishes it from all other churches that claim episcopal polity. There are some issues on which I am flexible regarding the infobox, but Papal governance is an inflexible doctrine of the Catholic Church and, for me, an inflexible part of the infobox. Otherwise it suggests something that is simply not true. I would insist on reliable sources that confirm otherwise (which do not exist) or an overwhelming consensus on this talk page to agree to "episcopal governance". Sundayclose (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: read for example College of Bishops; 1983 Code of Canon Law canons 336–341; Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches canon 42 and canon 43; and Lumen gentium nn18–29. It is a complex relationship, e.g "The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church" (CIC 336). College of Bishops is a different body than the Synod of Bishops.

It has nothing to do with valid orders.

It has nothing to do with schisms which "is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CIC 751). Individual schismatics are excommunicated by there acts (CIC 1364 §1). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The operative words are "together with its head and never without this head". Bishops never govern without the full consent of the Pope. I agree that governance has nothing to do with valid orders. It has everything to do with the full authority of the Pope in all matters. The Pope has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered". That is unequivocal. It is not the power of the bishops that governs the church. It is the power of the Pope. As I said, the polity is episcopal, but the governance is solely with the Pope. I ask anyone to give me one example in which the bishops have governed independently of the Pope or have made definitive decisions that have been contrary to Papal approval. Sundayclose (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: yes, together at times. Lumen gentium was explicit about that and included clarifications from the Acts of the Council in an appendix. The pope "can always exercise his power at will." In contrast, the college acts "only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase 'with the consent of its head' is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term 'consent' suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head." In other words, "bishops acting in conjunction with [... and] never [...] independently of the Pope" since it "does not exist without" him and he determines "according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way." The pope "proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity." Sundayclose, that is hierarchical exercise of authority through a hierarchical episcopal system. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You earlier described it as a "complex" relationship. You are overcomplicating a very simple concept. There is a Catholic hierarchy, but that is only for carrying out church matters when there is no objection by the Pope. I've asked for this several times: give me one example in which the bishops made and implemented a decision with the opposition of the Pope. If the bishops cannot legitimately do anything without at least the passive approval of the Pope (i.e., the Pope does not express any objection) and never against his wishes, the bishops do not govern. They may govern their individual diocese unless the Pope overrules them, but they do not govern the worldwide Catholic Church. Give the example I asked for and we'll have something to discuss. Otherwise we are at an impasse unless a very clear consensus emerges. And if necessary I will start an RfC on this issue. Thanks for your comments, but we have no agreement on this matter. Sundayclose (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources say that bishops govern particular Churches. The Pope has ordinary power over the whole Church. The document says that the College of Bishops govern with the Pope because of the bishops' governance of particular Churches. Nobody but the Pope has supreme power. Universi Dominici Gregis says that during the sede vacante period, the College of Cardinals is entrusted with governance of the Church, with many restrictions. The College of Cardinals is a subset of the College of Bishops. Let's just apply common sense. There are over 2000 Catholic bishops in the world, should they all be governing the worldwide Church? Elizium23 (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Let us take a closer look at the "Governance" tag in the infobox. Governance is linked to the page Ecclesiastical polity, as does the "Polity" tag. This suggests the Template authors considered them synomyns, or at least at up to the discretion of the individual editors. This page defines it: "Ecclesiastical polity is the operational and governance structure of a church or of a Christian denomination" (although no relevant sources are cited anywhere in the article!). Dictionaries define "governances" as "the action or manner of governing" (Oxford), "the way that a city, company, etc., is controlled by the people who run it" (MW). Based on the dictionary definition, "Holy See" is clearly not a manner of "governance". If we look at pages with mature infoboxes religion, we see that very few that use the governance tag at all. In the top ten result, none use it to name the specific governing body. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for instance uses"Goverance=Hierarchical".--Zfish118 (talk) 06:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)\

@Zfish118: just so I don't misunderstand your point in the edit immediately above, are you suggesting that we omit the "governance" parameter to resolve this dispute? At this point I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that idea, but I want to be sure I understand what you said. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a strong opinion about this field in particular. I am simply pointing out that the template documentation is ambiguous, but that the usage points towards the "governance" field being a synonymous alternative to the "polity" field. I believe that this issue, as all issues, should be addressed by finding high quality sources to include in the article, as none currently describe the church "polity". Perhaps, as you suggest, it ought to be omitted until sources can be found; per below, I feel the same way about most fields in the infobox thus far. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the confusion about governance and polity. In looking at the template page, I noticed for the first time that both fields are described as ecclesiastical polity, so the author of the template has provided no help. I couldn't find anything on the talk page that addresses the distinction. Unfortunately this complicates an issue that is already disputed. Of course, there is a difference in the meaning of the terms, but that doesn't help resolve the dispute. My personal preference is to include both fields in the infobox. I suppose we will have to wait and see how others feel. Sundayclose (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, what the problem? Earlier on, somebody obected to the "Western Church" add, which was then abondoned in the said, reverted edit. I made four separate edits, so that if any one of them would for any reason seem controviersial, not all four of them would be of discussion. Are really all four edits controversial to you? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident, the issue is not "controversy" but rather procedural and respect for others' opinions. When someone reverts you (as BoboMisiu did here), coming back the next day and making the same edits again (except for the "Western" issue) is not the way disagreements are handled on Wikipedia. After you are reverted, if you wish to restore your edits you should have come to this talk page first. See WP:BRD for details. I assume you simply did not know about this and made your edit in good faith, but please wait for discussion here. Sundayclose (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to move the infobox to draft space

The issue still remains whether the infobox contains clear, neutral, and helpful information for the general public. Several experienced Wikipedians have expressed here confusion and disagreement over the usage of terminology in the infobox, so I do not believe that the infobox is serving its intended purpose. This discussion has also revealed an apparent disagreement over what exactly the church teaches about the nature of its leadership, and what the sources say, with the possibility of a RFC being brought up. This is a valid and good discussion that might lead to significant changes to the hierarchy section; I would propose that the narrow discussion regarding the infobox is not place to try to address the issue. There are are also still my concerns regarding the neutrality of presenting Jesus as historical founder, which are also based on poor sourcing in the early history sections. Addressing these issues may also lead to changes in the history section. I wish to suggest that the current infobox be moved to draft-space while these larger article issues are worked out. Building consensus on article content itself, based on high quality sources and research, would make it simple for an interest party to build a high quality infobox. Without these additional sources, or expansion of content directly citable to existing sources, we risk wasting time and effort trying to summarize the current version of the article into the infobox, only to find that things must be changed later when a consensus on the whole article is reached. --Zfish118 (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Ammended: Based on the current state of the infobox, I see no pressing need to move it to draft space. I encourage continued discussion on the sourcing and neutrality issues. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Comment I think the modified existing infobox looks good and see no need to add another now. The terminology would over time cascade to infoboxes about the constituent Catholic Churches, e.g. Latin Church, so an RFC would be good for specifying polity and/or governance. I have read articles about groups that claim founders that others consider as mythical figures, or founders that are historical figures but placed into a historicized foundation narrative, who nevertheless remain identified as founders. Identifying Jesus as a founder does not exclude claims of other apostolic churches founded in the 1st century who also claim continuity to the Apostolic Age and Jesus as Messiah, i.e. more than one thing can have the same founder and emerge from the same Great Commission; in my opinion it is neutral. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC); modified 04:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'll defer making comments about moving the infobox to draft space. But BoBoMisiu makes a good point if I understand it correctly. The Catholic Church's claim of Jesus as founder (if that is how it ends up in the infobox) doesn't mean that other denominations cannot claim him as founder. Actually I'm surprised that I haven't seen that in other uses of the infobox. Perhaps the infobox itself needs revision to include more specific guidelines about this and other issues. But that's another discussion that doesn't belong here of course. Sundayclose (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for cooperatively working out differences of opinion and improvement of the infobox. Are there remaining issues that need to be addressed? Sundayclose (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose linking the "Episcopal hierarchy" link to the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That one is complex and goes back to the problem that the infobox parameters don't make a distinction between polity and governance, which then brings up the disputed issue above about whether governance is Pope or the Pope in communion with the bishops (i.e., the hierarchy). For what it's worth, here's my opinion if we accept the somewhat inaccurate equating of polity and governance by the infobox parameters. Episcopal polity states that "Churches with an episcopal polity are governed by bishops", which doesn't capture the idea of supreme governance of the Pope. I think the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church article describes more specifically and clearly the governance structure that is unique to the Catholic Church. My take on this issue is that the polity is Episcopal and the governance is the hierarchy (with the Pope having ultimate authority in governance). So I favor pipe-linking "Episcopal hierarchy" to Hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Sundayclose (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• A small point. ""Episcopal" here has a technical meaning." I wonder if less technically versed readers would immediately pick up on that, and I suspect that a least for some, the first thing to come to mind would be the Episcopal Church, ...and thus confusing. Is there a handy synonym? Mannanan51 (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No accurate synonym that I know of. "Episcopal" is widely used outside the context of the Episcopal Church. Any reader with more than a passing interest probably would click the link to get more details. Sundayclose (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

How about Islam, is it not a religion? Why are you telling guys that the Catholic Church is the religion, not Christianity?

Poor Buddhism... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.82.76 (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is part of divided Christianity, the religion, as are other non-catholic sister churches and ecclesial communities. The Catholic Church contains all the individual Catholic Churches, each of which is a church and not a denomination. It is both a church and a religion – e.g. "What makes religion religion, as distinct from beliefs, is that it is something that people do" ([1]). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

49.150.82.76 it's fine to raise these issues on this talk page, but please stop removing large portions of the article without discussion. This is an encyclopedia that is written collaboratively. It is not your personal blog that you can change on a whim. Sundayclose (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone objected to using the Christian denomination infobox; you object to using the religion infobox. It is literally the same template, with different redirects. The template name does not even appear in the article. If you want to make a case that the template is low quality and should be removed, be my guest. But merely objecting to which infobox template is used, rather than its content, is insufficient to warrant its removal. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Have you read Wikipedia's article about religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.82.76 (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I undid your deletion of the info box in the article. I don't understand what your problem is with this template, it simply appears to convey basic facts about the article in a concise format. This basic template does not convey a point of view. Outback the koala (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is St. Peter's Basilica featured at the top of the article? If we're trying to demonstrate the organizational aspects, we should be showing St. John Lateran which is the actual "seat" of the Pope. 2602:306:C407:D070:95B0:DCC3:C332:EEA8 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Because St. Peter's is more widely associated with the Catholic Church. The article is about the Church, not just the Pope. Sundayclose (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Hazhk's change of image in the infobox. St. Peter's is far more recognizable as representative of the Catholic Church. Wikipedia is written for general readership, not those who already understand details such as St. John Lateran being the seat of the pope. I think if you showed both images to 100 people (including Catholics) and asked which one is recognizable as part of Catholicism, the vast majority would choose St. Peter's. Lateran is also outside of Vatican City; if there's one place on Earth that is considered the center of Catholicism (not just the pope) it is the Vatican. Sundayclose (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have raised this first on the talk page. I understand where you are coming from. However, an image of Saint Peter's Basilica is currently used in the Catholic Church templates and related portal, so it is not entirely absent from the article. I do not see why the basilica needs to be shown twice at the top of the article, particularly since the image in the infobox is of a poorer quality and has few merits on its own. You say that "Wikipedia is written for general readership, not those who already understand details such as St. John Lateran being the seat of the pope", but surely the purpose of Wikipedia is to educate and inform the readership! An image of St. John Lateran is far more appropriate for the infobox, which is supposed to provide a very brief overview of the church. The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church and his cathedral is St. John Lateran. If we include the Lateran Basilica and St. Peter's Basilica immediately below it then we have the best of both world. --Hazhk (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I will add that though St. Peter's is popularly considered "the center of Catholicism" it is, in fact, St. John Lateran Basilica which is the official mother church of Catholicism. Facts should triumph over popular misconceptions. -- Hazhk (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of St. Peter's in the CC template, I understand your concern, but I think it needs to be determined by consensus whether one needs to be changed. I personally don't have a problem with St. Peter's being in both. It's a matter of opinion, of course, whether St. Peter's or Lateran best represents Catholicism. Your point about seat of the pope is true, but so is the argument that the article is about the Church and not the pope as well as the point that the Vatican is the center of Catholicism. Every pope is elected at the Vatican and first greets the world from the loggia of the basilica. A number of Pope's are buried at the Vatican, including (according to tradition) the first pope. Just the word "Vatican" as reported by the media is indicative of the matters of importance related to the Church. Lateran is the seat of the pope as the bishop of Rome; as such it is the cathedral of that diocese. St. Peter's is not restricted to a diocese; it is the associated with worldwide Catholicism. I don't think an image unrecognizable as associated with Catholicism by many people will do anything to educate them. I don't have a problem with including the image of Lateran lower in the article with a brief mention in the text about its significance. Any reader who wants more than a superficial understanding of Catholicism will read the article. Regarding the image in the infobox being poor quality, there are a number of free images available and others have been used; I have no problem with using a different one. Sundayclose (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

St. Peters fits better I think – more recognizable; Vatican is actual administrative head; it's where the Pope is chosen, lives, works and often dies; etc. – but I changed the photo. Is it an improvement? It is a more different angle than the Catholic template. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your photo selection. Sundayclose (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There had been discussion previously that the history section made more sense at the end of the article, to explain the contemporary organization before diving into a history that is 1/3 the length of the entire article (itself a rather long article). See here for instance. If you believe it should be otherwise, feel free to discuss. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 19:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, an alternative Template:Infobox Christian church body exists that is currently used for many Orthodox and Eastern Catholic church articles. Might be easier to use than the current template, which seems to have been written primarily for protestant churches, and needed heavy modification. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 18:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Zfish118: I prefer the current one, {{Infobox religion}}, because it has more parameters than the proposed {{Infobox Christian church body}} although the proposed template name, Infobox Christian church body, may be more neutral. Would using that proposed template retain all the current information? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't strongly favor the template Infobox Christian church body specifically, although I agree the name is less problematic. Every few weeks someone objects to the mere template name. When the infobox was first proposed, Infobox Christian church body would have been much easier to adapt, although infobox religion has been substantially expanded to better accommodate the Catholic Church article. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 22:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090827023130/http://browseinside.harpercollins.com:80/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061245213 to http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061245213
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071223141702/http://www.cbc.ca:80/news/obit/pope/communism_homeland.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/obit/pope/communism_homeland.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

While the governance and polity tags remain ambiguous and difficult to fill, I agree with with Jahaza restoring "hierarchical", simply because the sources provided do [not] state state "Roman Curia" as the means of governance. The two sources describe a twofold hierarchy, based on the sacramental authority of the priesthood, and the religious authority of the bishop over his diocese. The sources currently used do not name a specific body; however, better sources might. (As an aside, the "College of Bishops" is a separate entity than the "Roman Curia".)--Zfish118 ^⋉talk 20:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that restoring hierarchical with link to Hierarchy of the CC is best. I thought that's what was decided by consensus in the discussion a few months ago?? Sundayclose (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The Roman Curia is not the governance of the Catholic Church any more than, for example, saying the departments (e.g. department of motor vehicles or department of agriculture) within a particular state are the governance of that state. The pope uses the Roman Curia to conduct Catholic Church affairs on a universal level, the regional bishops' conferences on a regional level, and each diocesan bishop on the local level. The category of polity is episcopal for sure. But, like I wrote in an archived thread on this talk page, the "governance should be episcopal" too, or maybe more clearly an episcopal hierarchy on a universal level, on a regional level, and on a diocesan (local) level. The Roman Curia home page states, from Christus Dominus, that "In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, [...] perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors." In other words, I agree with Zfish118 and Sundayclose. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC) modified 02:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to a discussion at Template talk:Roman Catholicism of which picture is best to illustrate the Template:Roman Catholicism navigation box. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 02:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The "Head" field in the infobox currently reads "Pope Francis as Bishop of Rome" and it looks fine now, but I think we should at least be aware that it will break during interregnums. Because "Francis" is supplied by the {{Incumbent pope}} template, it will automatically revert to Sede vacante or similar when Francis dies or resigns. Perhaps that is OK with everyone that the field will always need fiddling at these times; personally I would rather see a more robust treatment that did not need changing, in the spirit of {{Incumbent pope}}. What do you think? Elizium23 (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that needs to be addressed here. Why don't you go ahead and be bold and propose your improvement, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I looked at {{Incumbent pope}} and it is just a variable without any logic, I do not think it changes to Sede vacante without hard coding by a user. The current |leader_name=[[Pope]] {{Incumbent pope}} is the simple way. No matter what, a person will need to change some variable at the beginning of an interregnum and at the end. What would be your suggestion? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If this is a strong concern, the template might be reverted to a split between:

Head Bishop of Rome

Incumbent [[Pope]] {{incumbent pope}}

I tend to agree that the following a death or resignation, manually revising the infobox to something such as

Head Bishop of Rome (vacant since MMMYYYY)

would be simple enough in light of other references to the previously sitting pope that would need updating. --Zfish118^⋉talk 20:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In the infobox, the Governance tag should be "hierarchical". For example, "Governance is hierarchical" (rather than "Governance is hierarchy"); for comparison, "polity is episcopal" (rather than "polity is episcopacy"). The polity and governance fields seem to require adjectives to be consistent. --Zfish118^⋉talk 23:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Might using "Structure Catholic hierarchy" in the infobox make more sense than the nearly synonymous governance and polity tags? --Zfish118^⋉talk 15:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense for the entire phrase "Churches sui iuris" to pipe to the "Particular churches" article. With the line break, it [used to appear] that "churches" refers only to "Latin Church", and "sui iuris" refers only to "Eastern Catholic Churches". The "Particular Churches" article is more relevant too, as it discusses what an autonomous church is, rather than discuss solely the meaning and use of the technical Latin term "sui iuris". --Zfish118^⋉talk 22:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Zfish118, I agree. It looks like you already made the change..? 8bitW (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree, although the Latin Church is also by definition sui iuris in the Catholic Church. Maybe something like:

fellowships_type1=[[Autonomous particular churches|Churches ''sui iuris'']]

fellowships1=1 Western [[Latin Church]] and 23 Eastern ''[[sui iuris]]'' Churches in one Catholic Church

I think sui iuris Church and particular Church are overlapping but different. The Second Vatican Council stated that "within the Church particular Churches hold a rightful place; these Churches retain their own traditions,..." (LG 13, cf. LG 23). The sui iuris Churches are dependent on their own law. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

sui iuris is a narrower term than "particular church". "Particular church" can refer both to a local church of any rite headed by a bishop (i.e., a diocese or eparchy), and is often used that way in Church documents. However, it can also refer to sui iuris churches, usually with the prefix "autonomous". sui iuris refers only to "autonomous particular churches". The Latin Church (or Roman Church) is itself a sui iuris church, along with the other 23 Eastern Catholic churches that together make up the worldwide Catholic Church.

Truthfully, the Church documents themselves use the terms somewhat inconsistently. Maybe it's more clear in Latin? Ultimately, both terms essentially mean the same thing. 8bitW (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@8bitW: Yes, this note was to document why I had made the change; the goal is so that the Latin and Eastern Catholic churches are shown as peers under the same heading, rather than separate classes under the confusing split heading there previously. (Clarification made to original post.) @BoBoMisiu:I piped "churches sui juris" to Autonomous particular churches to make this distinction more }clear, although the target still redirects to Particular church. --Zfish118^⋉talk 20:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@8bitW: yes, I agree use of the terms varies and sui juris is also used for other church structures (2001 e.g.). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Zfish118: yes, I saw that. I corrected the formatting of my suggestion above. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would someone revert such a useful edit? Didn't Michael Lawson found the Catholic Church according to tradition? --Zfish118^⋉talk 17:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

:-P yeah I caught that one too. Nice to know some people have so much time on their hands.... 8bitW (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The "State and religion" section remains unsourced. --Zfish118^⋉talk 02:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Text of unsourced section:

State and religion

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Archive 54" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The Catholic teaching in Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom (1965), states that all people are entitled to religious freedom, that constitutional law should recognise such freedom and that no one is to be coerced into belief in the Catholic faith, but the Church also condemns the notion that "the Church ought to be separated from the state", as in the Syllabus of Errors. While recognising an individual's freedom of worship, the Second Vatican Council in Dignitatis Humanae "leaves intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ". This traditional teaching is found in Vehementer Nos, a 1906 encyclical of Pope Pius X, which condemned the laicisation of the French state, but the teaching ultimately was derived from various texts in the Bible, and the magisterial teaching of Pope Gelasius; hence the traditional teaching is known as the Gelasian doctrine.

It is an important enough section that someone knowledgeable ought to be able to salvage it. --Zfish118^⋉talk 05:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Zfish118: here is my contribution of quotes from the primary sources but I will not be looking for the secondary – someone else can do that based on these primary sources. Most of what is pre-Vatican II is considered as historical and not current. Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes is current and what you would work from. The Catechism is also current.

There is a section in the Catechism entitled "Participation In Social Life". In it, quoting from the chapter "The life of the political community" in Gaudium et Spes (n.74), the Catechism states: "If authority belongs to the order established by God, 'the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens.' The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them." (n.1901)

The section on 4th commandment states "it extends to the duties of [...] citizens to their country, and to those who administer or govern it. This commandment includes and presupposes the duties of [...] leaders, magistrates, those who govern, all who exercise authority over others or over a community of persons."(n.2199) The 4th commandment "is expressed in positive terms of duties to be fulfilled. [...] It constitutes one of the foundations of the social doctrine of the Church." (n.2198)

A section on "The person and society" states that God "entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence." (n.1884)

Returning to Gaudium et Spes n.76, which states that in "a correct notion of the relationship between the political community and the Church": "The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person." "The Church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each other. Yet both, under different titles, are devoted to the personal and social vocation of the same men. The more that both foster sounder cooperation between themselves with due consideration for the circumstances of time and place, the more effective will their service be exercised for the good of all."

There is no contradiction. Understanding the context will show the meaning, or, in the words of Pope Francis, "you need to find the hermeneutic of 'all'." "this is a lesson, that one item of news must be interpreted according to the hermeneutic of the whole, not of a part."

Reading these two excerpts in Syllabus of Errors under the heading "Errors about civil society, considered both in itself and in its relation to the church":

Condemned proposition 54: "Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction." – Pius IX in Damnatio "Multiplices inter" (1851-06-10).

Condemned proposition 55: "The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." – Pius IX in Acerbissimum vobiscum (1852-09-27).

Likewise, understanding the context of these two errors will show the meaning of the two condemned proposition or errors. While the condemned proposition 55 "seem[s] problematic today," Cardinal Avery Dulles wrote in 2001, that the context from which it was taken was "the persecution of the Church" by the Republic of New Granada government, which "under pretext of separating itself from the Church, imposed a ruthless secularization, denying all public recognition and legal rights to religious organizations. It confiscated all seminaries, reduced marriage to a purely civil contract, suppressed religious schools, and claimed the right to appoint all bishops and pastors." Dulles points out that Dignitatis Humanae "does not accept that so-called 'separation', which really amounts to the State's control of the entire social order. [But it] sets forth a long list of freedoms that the Catholic Church claims for herself. At no point, moreover, does it use the ambiguous expression, 'separation of Church and State'."

Dulles wrote that, Second Vatican Council theologians, including John Courtney Murray, "defended the Council's claim that DH is a harmonious adaptation, not a correction, of previous Catholic teaching. In Murray’s words, DH represented "an authentic development of doctrine" or progress in the deposit of faith as described by Vincent of Lérins, in Commonitory, as "'an authentic progress, not a change, of the faith'."

I improved a Gelasian doctrine article with citations to "various texts in the Bible" that are sourced to a good reference.

Vehementer Nos was about the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State (see René Vilatte#Des Houx, a paragraph in Paolo Miraglia-Gulotti, and a PhD thesis (p4, 6–8, 13, passim) for some background about this late 19th century and early 20th century culture war waged against the Catholic Church). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100722082631/http://www.vaticanstate.va:80/EN/State_and_Government/ to http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/State_and_Government/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231084624/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/europe/holy-see/ to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/europe/holy-see/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150721142407/http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2086%20%5B1994%5D%20-%20ocr.pdf to http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2086%20%5B1994%5D%20-%20ocr.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150521124654/http://www.liturgica.com/html/litWLEarly.jsp?hostname=null to http://www.liturgica.com/html/litWLEarly.jsp?hostname=null#Worship
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141219120231/http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released to https://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released#.VKCLXP-5UA
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141129042834/http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/38686.php to http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/38686.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130110112941/http://www.aoiusa.org:80/canon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect/ to http://www.aoiusa.org/canon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110810175256/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930324en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930324en.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120622085508/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304fea2.asp to http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304fea2.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120622081042/http://www.madrid11.com:80/en/what-is-wyd to http://www.madrid11.com/en/what-is-wyd

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I changed "Churches sui iuri" to "Autonomous churches", as phrased in the lead:

The Latin Church, the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches and religious institutes such as the Jesuits, mendicant orders and enclosed monastic orders, reflect a variety of theological emphases in the Church.^[1][2]

The term "sui iuris" is not currently mentioned until several sections into the article, and only then, mentioned as a Latin synonym for "autonomous". --Zfish118^⋉talk 20:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I won't split hairs over the literal translation of "sui iuris" although "autonomous" doesn't really capture the meaning. More importantly, to a reader not familiar with these details of Catholicm, the article Sui iuris is more informative than the word "autonomous" or even particular church (which is pipelinked from "autonomous" ). It may be a "technical term", but it is a very informative technical term, and as with many Wikipedia articles, the interested reader can click the link and read more. I agree that "autonomous" should be restored in the lead, but I don't think how far down in the article each term appears has much bearing on what should be in the infobox. Sundayclose (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Sundayclose. The sui iuris article is more informative about the current status. The particular church article is describing the older status of sui ritus as described in the 1964 Orientalium Ecclesiarum. The sui iuris is the description in the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. The particular church article needs to be edited to reflect this difference with references to canon law commentaries. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:MOS says: "Plain English works best. Avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." (More detail at MOS:JARGON.) I can see there is a problem here that there is no plain English term which fully expresses the meaning of 'sui iuris'; however, I don't think that 'sui iuris' is even close to being a well-known enough term to use unexplained (as it would have to be in an infobox) in a general-audience article like this. That doesn't mean that the article linked from 'autonomous' or 'autonomous (sui iuris)' shouldn't be 'Sui iuris' (or probably better Sui iuris#Catholic_ecclesiastical_use) if that is the better article, but I think the term sui iurus can only be used in contexts where there is space to explain its meaning. TSP (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:MOS is a guideline, and like most guidelines addresses general issues that have exceptions. This is one of those exceptions. Sometimes plain English isn't just plain, it has the potential for giving an inadequate impression. A word other than "autonomous" needs to be used. It's better for the uninformed reader to wonder what "sui iuris" means rather than reaching the wrong conclusion from "autonomous". Most people will click the link and read more if they really want to know. Most well written medical articles don't avoid a technical term at the expense of accuracy; the good ones provide a link for a more complete explanation. The same applies here. Sundayclose (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

How about "by its own law"? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but if you mean to put "Churches by its own law" in the infobox, to me that's very confusing, not to mention rather wordy. I'm open to discussion but I think the only accurate way to state it without a phrase too long for the infobox is sui iuris. It's accurate, concise, and gives the reader an opportunity to click for more information. Sundayclose (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

We could just use "Churches". --Jahaza (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Although I continue to favor using sui iuris, if the consensus becomes simply using the word "Churches", the word should be pipelinked to sui iuris rather than particular church, Sundayclose (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I support the use of sui iuris (note the italics for a Latin term). We might as well introduce it here, as anyone who might be sent to read Church documents will encounter it anyway. Elizium23 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

• I would find Sui iuris to be an acceptable article to pipe to. "Churches sui iuris" now redirects there.
• I concur with removing "Patriarchates" as a level of "jurisdictions".
• I am still concerned about the placement of Holy See, which is not a diocese itself, but rather the authority vested with the territory known as the Diocese of Rome. It also has (by divine right in Catholic teaching) preeminence over all other diocesan sees. It not simply a peer jurisdiction, but rather the sole jurisdiction that can erect or suppress all other diocesan sees sui uiris (it alone can do this by its own right - although it can and has partially delegated this authority to subordinated entities). Calling the Holy See a "jurisdiction" with no further explanation is incomplete at best or slightly misleading. --Zfish118^⋉talk 05:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• One possible reconfiguration might be, mirroring article structure:

Catholic Church
Saint Peter's Basilica, Vatican City
Classification	Christian
Polity	Episcopal[1]
Structure	Catholic hierarchy[2][3]
Head	Pope Francis as Bishop of Rome
Organization	Holy See  Episcopal see of the Pope Churches sui iuris (24)  Self-governing particular churches  • Latin Church  • Eastern Catholic Churches (23) Dioceses  • Archdioceses (640)  • Regular dioceses (2,851)
Region	Worldwide
Founder	Jesus Christ, according to Catholic tradition
Origin	1st century Jerusalem, Judea, Roman Empire
Members	1.254 billion[4]
Clergy	5,100 bishops 413,000 priests
Website	Holy See

• I think it's misleading to describe particular churches as "self-governing". Eastern churches are not entirely self-governing. All churches are within the governance of the Pope. "Self-governing" can be described as occurring in levels. Certainly Eastern churches are more self-governing than an individual diocese, but to simply state "self-governing" ignores the supreme governance of the Pope. It's too complicated to describe in the infobox, which is why "sui iuris" is linked. I think it's best to leave out "self-governing".
• Holy See is more than authority vested within the territory known as the Diocese of Rome. As Holy See states it: "It serves as the central point of reference for the church everywhere." I prefer to keep "Jurisdictions" as they are now. Sundayclose (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• The important distinction is that the Eastern Catholic Churches relate to the Pope in his title of Supreme Pontiff, where as the Latin Church is directly and immediately governed by the Pope and Curia. For instance, in the appointment of bishops, the Pope chooses to exercise only a veto over internal appointments by ECC's, rather than direct appointment based on recommendations in the Latin Church. This relationship, of course, has been blurred over the centuries; Latin authorities have acted with greater authority and influence over the ECC's in the past, which was one of the issues the CCEO was meant to limit. --Zfish118^⋉talk 17:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that chain of command is different for the EC churches compared to the Latin church. But "self-governing" oversimplifies the ultimate governance by the Pope. You stated it correctly when you say that the Pope chooses to exercise only veto power. At his discretion, he can change that process, although he likely would not. That is one of the main distinctions between EC churches and Eastern Orthodox churches. Sundayclose (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• But within the framework of Catholic teaching, it is much more than the Pope "chooses to exercise only veto"; the Eastern Catholic patrimony is taught to be God-given and independent of Western patrimony. The Pope has the authority to intervene, but only by necessity of his supreme authority to protect the church. It would be unjust of him to exercise that authority without good cause. The pope could and arguably has abused his authority in the past with regard to the Eastern churches.
• Technically speaking in Catholic teaching, the Eastern Catholic Churches are every bit as independent as the Orthodox Churches; the Pope's authority is taught to extend to all Baptized Christians. The Orthodox are simply in a state of defiance of Papal authority, where as the Eastern Catholic are not. (Canon Law, however, is only framed to define and govern those in explicit communion with the Pope.) --Zfish118^⋉talk 21:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think we have any substantive disagreement about the Pope's role in EC churches, although I still think the "self-governing" phrase is much too complex to include in the infobox.
• You are correct that "the Eastern Catholic Churches are every bit as independent as the Orthodox Churches" in the theoretical sense of "state of defiance". The same could be said of Protestant churches. But in a practical sense, of course, the Pope has no authority over Orthodox churches and Orthodox churches can function entirely independently of the Pope, unlike EC churches. Sundayclose (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Fair enough. --Zfish118^⋉talk 16:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR does not apply to this article. The Church refers to them as self-governing and therefore we report on that. Elizium23 (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind the term "self-governing" in the article if it is explained. But, as I said, the concept is too complex for the infobox where it can't be explained. Sundayclose (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is this article named ‘Catholic Church’? It is true that the Roman Catholic Church claims that it is THE Catholic Church, but that is a claim not held by other Churches. The churches of England, Norway or Sweden, for instance, also claim to be part of the Catholic Church. Some claim that ‘Roman’ isn’t ‘good enough,’ as there are non-latin churches in communion with Rome. But ‘Roman’ can also mean ‘in communion with the Roman Pontiff,’ and that is exactly how pope Pius XII used the term. In Humani Generis, he used ‘Roman’ to describe all Catholics in communion with Rome: «The Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.» Of course I don’t agree with this, but I recognise that the pope used ‘Roman’ as a term which covered everyone in communion with him, latin or non-latin. We see the same thing, in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, which was adressed to «our venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other local Ordinaries enjoying Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.» In that encyclical, he is even more explicit: «If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.» Here the Pope is using the term Roman for every Catholic Christian in communion with him, including Eastern Catholics.

The point I’m making is that ‘being in communion with the Roman Pontiff’ is NOT art of the definition of the word ‘catholic.’ So why, again, is this article named ‘Catholic Church’? Carissimi (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Because it is the term the most used to name this organization. I doubt you'll see much references saying "the Catholic Church" for naming the churches of England, Norway or Sweden, even though they may say that those churches "are catholic", it is not the "name" used for them. Amqui (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

But those Churches DO call themselves ‘Catholic.’ As does the Orthodox Church (whose full name is ‘the Orthodox Catholic Church’). The article used to be called ‘the Roman Catholic Church,’ yet someone changed it. Why? Carissimi (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, the important part is not how those organizations call themselves, but what the third-party references talking about the topic call them. Amqui (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it important that you be able to provide a distinction between a denomination calling itself "catholic" as in describing itself as universal and a denomination calling itself "Catholic Church" for a name. The Catholic Church calls itself such as a name. "Roman" has never been part of its name. In fact, the moniker "Roman" started during the protestant reformation as a slur. Its just not part of the Church's official name, exactly as "Catholic" isn't part of the "Church of England" or the "Anglican Church's" official name. Its claim to be THE Church is entirely separate from its formal name.

I would also point to WP:COMMONNAME for the relevant policy that suggests this article be named "Catholic Church". Its simply far FAR more often used a term, both by Catholics and non, to refer to the Church. As such, that is supposed to be the name of the article. There are many many discussions in the archives about this very issue.Farsight001 (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Catholic Church has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The first line of the page says "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church, with more than 1.25 billion members worldwide". The Roman Catholic Church is a large portion of the Catholic Church, but they are not the same. The Catholic Church is made up of smaller churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Russian Orthodox Church, or the Armenian Catholic Church. Also, the third sentence states "Headed by the Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope, its doctrines are summarised in the Nicene Creed"(referring to the Catholic Church). The Catholic Church is not headed by the Pope, the Roman Catholic Church is headed by the Pope. The invisible head of the Catholic Church is Jesus, and the visible heads of the various Churches are the bishops, who are direct apostolic successors to the original twelve apostles. The Eastern Churches accept the papacy of the Bishop of Rome(making them in full communion with the other Eastern Churches, and the RCC), but they also have their own distinct heads of their churches, such as the Armenian Catholicos(Karekin II), or the Patriarch of the Russian Church(Kirill). LegendOfDello (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

To expand on the rejection of your proposed change - you actually have the name wrong. Its official name IS "Catholic Church", not "Roman Catholic Church" ("Roman" was actually added as a slur during the protestant reformation), and whether its claim to being THE Church Catholic is true or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia naming conventions dictate rather clearly that it be called the Catholic Church simply because it is the term people search by most often (by a large margin) when looking for the Church headed by Pope Francis. The Catholicism article might be more what you're imagining this article should be.Farsight001 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I also will add that this issue has been discussed more than once with no consensus for such changes. It's in the talk page archives. Sundayclose (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Catholic Church has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the basic info section, that the "Founder" be changed from "Jesus Christ, according to Catholic tradition" to simply "Jesus Christ", because it is objective, verifiable, and historical fact that He did founder the Catholic Church. 2601:2C3:201:C049:753D:79F1:E08F:7FEF (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

...According to Catholic tradition. The Orthodox Church will say that He founded the Orthodox Church.  Not done Ian.thomson (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Orthodox would fully agree Jesus founded the "Catholic Church"; the disagreement is whether the Roman or Orthodox is the "Catholic Church" ;-). --Zfish118^⋉talk 22:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

A very immature part of me is giddy that I'm the original cause of this flame war. ;) Crusadestudent (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2016 (EDT)

@Crusadestudent: See WP:Disruptive editing. Talk like that will make it hard for people to think that your intention wasn't to disrupt the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit by Crusadestudent (talk · contribs) improved the infobox with:

{{{separations|East-West Schism Protestant Reformation}}}

{{{merger|Post-Schism reunions of the "Uniate" Churches with the Latin Church}}}

It uses words to describe what this "Christianity Branches" diagram describes. The image, added to Wikimedia commons in 2012, seems uncontroversial and is used in several articles. The words describe WP:BLUE changes in Christianity.

I think

{{{founded_date|AD 33}}} is subjective and

{{{founded_date|1st century}}} is better.

I think

{{{parent|Second Temple Judaism}}}

is too complicated to be reduced to a parameter in an infobox. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "AD 33" is subjective. Either the Catholic Church was founded then (as the Catholic Church herself will argue) or she was founded in the fourth century by Emperor Constantine (as many non- and anti-Catholics will argue). It doesn't seem to make any sense to concede "1st century" yet insist that "AD 33" is subjective. Unless of course you have some other reason I haven't considered. Crusadestudent (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

While east-west schism and protestant reformation tags might be defensible, I object very strongly to any phrasing including "uniate", as that is a rabbit hole we need not go down. --Zfish118^⋉talk 20:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand the negative connotations associated with the term "Uniate", and if the term can be avoided, I'm all for it. Keep in mind, though, that this is what they would have been called at the time of their reunions with Rome, absent of the negative connotation (and even with a sense of pride at remaining in communion with the pope). There also may not be another good way to describe this; the term "Eastern Catholic Churches" didn't come around until a long while afterwards. Crusadestudent (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

What about having Holy See as Governance rather than Administration, leaving Roman Curia there alone? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The governance tag seems to be rarely used, and when used, seems to be a synonym for "polity". I have not found any article that uses the tag (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_Christian_branch) to refer to a specific organization. In "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", for example, the governance is described as "hierarchical". It is not used to refer to the office of the president/prophet. --Zfish118^⋉talk 22:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Administration seems better because it involves the delegated authority of the pope while governance is the bishops in union with the pope. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not looking to start an edit war, but the Oxford comma / no Oxford comma divide isn't really a British/American divide. The use of the Oxford comma could still be British English (cf. the page on the Oxford comma). Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The serial comma (so-called "Oxford comma") is not normally used in contemporary British English and this article does not use it except in quotations. Therefore it should not be added just because an editor thinks it is somehow more correct. The same principle applies to "ize" instead of "ise" spellings etc. Anglicanus (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The best-known British style guide, Oxford Style Manual/New Hart's Rules, recommends using the serial comma. Whatever the logic, some editors have decided that the best way to fight American imperialism is to remove them. Gulangyu (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the reliable sources and find "Roman Catholic" is used without any problems as a standard term. I browsed the titles in some self-identified Catholic scholarly journals to demonstrate this: 1) "Faith and Leadership: The Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church" in Catholic Historical Review. (Autumn 2015); 2) "The Feast Of Corpus Christi In Mikulov, Moravia: Strategies Of Roman Catholic Counter-Reform (1579-86)" in Catholic Historical Review (Oct 2010); 3) "Divided Friends: Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States." in U.S. Catholic Historian (Fall 2013); 4) "The church and the seer: Veronica Lueken, the Bayside movement, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy" in American Catholic Studies (Fall 2012); 5) "Incompatible with God's Design: A History of the Women's Ordination Movement in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church." Catholic Historical Review (Oct 2013); 6) "The Rise and Fall of Triumph: The History of a Radical Roman Catholic Magazine, 1966-1976." Catholic Historical Review (Spring 2015); 7) "Mary, star of hope: Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the United States from 1854 to 2010, as seen through the lens of Roman Catholic Marian congregational song." American Catholic Studies (Spring 2013); 8) "Roman Catholic Ecclesiastics In English North America, 1610-58: A Comparative Assessment" CCHA Study Sessions (Canadian Catholic Historical Association). (1999) ; 9) "Gender, Catholicism, and Spirituality: Women and the Roman Catholic Church in Britain and Europe, 1200-1900." American Catholic Studies (Fall 2012); 10) "Master'S Theses And Doctoral Dissertations On Roman Catholic History In The United States: A Selected Bibliography" U.S. Catholic Historian (Jan 1987). Rjensen (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Search the archives and read the prior discussions regarding "Catholic Church" v "Roman Catholic Church". Both names are acceptable and commonly used. Catholic Church is used slightly more often and officially. If you have new information that contradicts facts used in previous discussion to reach a consensus on this matter, please share it. Please be specific. --Zfish118^⋉talk 22:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"Roman" is rarely used in RS's. It happens, but it is actually uncommon. In Google Scholar, there are five times as many results for just "Catholic Church", without Roman than there are with. On plain google, there are 3 times as many. In addition, while "Roman Catholic Church" is sometimes acceptable, just "Catholic Church" is the Church's official name. And, most importantly, article naming conventions on wikipedia mandate rather clearly that this article be named just "Catholic Church". As Zfish said, there are many discussions in the archives about this very issue. I highly doubt it will get changed any time soon - and it shouldn't be.Farsight001 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This issue has been thrashed to death over the years. I do not agree with Farsight's assertions that the use of "Roman Catholic Church" in RS is "uncommon". It is not at all uncommon in many English language countries but actually very common. It was also not "clearly" the case that the article should be "Catholic Church" according to Wikipedia's "mandate" (whatever that is). We reached a consensus that it probably ought to be named this way and it was changed. But there were also valid arguments against doing this. I supported the change with some reservations. The greatest nonsense in the consensus discussions was the argument of some that the church has never "officially" used "Roman Catholic Church" as its name when this is patently untrue. I don't think, however, anything is to be gained by reopening this debate. The opening sentence is an acceptable compromise on this issue. It was also made clear in the consensus decision that the change in this article's name did not apply to any other articles and that editors are not now at liberty to change "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" in other articles without an article by article discussion and consensus. Afterwriting (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You know the origin of the use of Roman in "Roman Catholic Church" was as an anti-Catholic slur, right? The Catholic Church's official name IS "Catholic Church". While it may sometimes us "Roman", that does not make it officially its name. It really never has been. There are many Catholics all over the world offended by the term. "Roman Catholic Church" today refers typically to the Latin rite of the Catholic Church specifically, to the exclusion of the 24 other rites of the Church.

Regardless, article naming conventions suggest that the title of an article should lean towards the most commonly used term when attempting to find information on the entity about which the article is written. That is "Catholic Church", not "Roman Catholic Church", by leaps and bounds. I also provided the information above to illustrate that the OP was incorrect in their assertion that "Roman Catholic Church" was the standard term. I'll also note that, while the articles the OP named use "Roman Catholic", the names of the journals themselves all use simply "Catholic", which I think is important to keep in mind. One has to wonder what the other articles in those journals preferred to use.Farsight001 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Not all churches which are part of the Catholic Church self identify as Roman Catholic. What most people think of as the Roman Catholic Church is in fact the Latin Church – the common and largest part of the Catholic Church. Yes, the term Roman Catholic Church was a derogatory anti-Catholic term used by Protestants for centuries. I think the term Roman Catholic Church clings to that Western European bias that is not as common in the rest of the world – anti-Catholic bigotry is openly expressed on American TV in "The Real O'Neals" and seems to be acceptable in the 21st century. The usage of Catholic Church vs Roman Catholic Church can change over time and I think that most writer, who use Roman Catholic Church, use without being aware of the Western European bias. Eventually we will all be dead and someone will continue this argument. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether all Catholics who are in full communion with Rome self-identify or not as "Roman Catholic" the basic fact is that they still are. The term, at least as used by the highest authorities in the church itself, always includes both the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches. It is never used to only mean the Latin Church. "Roman Catholic Church" is also an English language form of the Latin names for the church already used before the Reformation. I can see no evidence that the term is somehow in itself "anti-Catholic" even if some people may have used it as such. The fact that the church sometimes uses the term itself also weakens this argument. Please read the Roman Catholic (term) article for more information about these things. If anyone is "offended" by the term when their own church still often uses it then their offence is based in their own ignorance or prejudices and is their own problem to resolve. Afterwriting (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I have seen no RS that claims "Roman Catholic" is inappropriate in he 21st century. Catholic scholars, editors, and universities use the term today. (Note that the valence of terms changes over the years: "Quaker" and "Methodist" were originally derogatory. 1) For example from the current 2016 U of Notre Dame Law School website: "The Congregation of Holy Cross, an order of Roman Catholic Priests, founded and maintain the University of Notre Dame, and the University is committed to continuing as a Roman Catholic institution." 2) from the current 2016 Foredham U website: "The Program entails a six-course interdisciplinary concentration focused on the study of Roman Catholic belief and culture in the United States." 3)2016 Georgetown U website: "The Roman Catholic Church is the world’s largest Christian denomination, representing around half of all Christians with 1.1 billion followers." 4) Loyola U (Maryland) 2016 website: "Who are the Jesuits? The Jesuits are members of the Society of Jesus, an order of Roman Catholic priests founded by St. Ignatius Loyola." 5) Catholic U of America website (theology dept) "You will receive a strong foundation in the Roman Catholic tradition." Rjensen (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rjensen: no that is not my point. My point is general about the culture – I wrote the "usage of Catholic Church vs Roman Catholic Church can change over time". "Quaker" and "Methodist" are good examples too. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, Rjensen. You seem to be suggesting that the article title be changed. The fact that some Catholics use the term Roman Catholic is not enough to have things changed.Farsight001 (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we should keep the title unchanged. It is the most used version. However we should accept the "Roman Catcholic" usage when an editor uses it--and not revert as happened yesterday. Rjensen (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, an article should consistently use one OR the other, not a blend of both.Farsight001 (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, @Farsight001. I vote for the simpler, more commonly used, and more technically correct "Catholic Church" throughout. Crusadestudent (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• OED's entry on "Roman Catholic" includes a note that explains that during the Reformation, official English usage was "Romanist." "Roman Catholic" arose as an attempt to split the difference between Catholic and Protestant usage. So the actual origin of this phrase was an attempt was soften an intentionally insulting term. The theological handwaving now employed to justify continued usage didn't arise until much later. Here is Catholic Encyclopedia:

Gulangyu (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gulangyu: I have not looked at the OED entry, but the OED entry usage note is about usage during the Reformation, when the government church usurped the term Catholic and called the Catholic Church that was repressed as Papist or Romanist. Romanist was a term used by the oppressors and government which killed Catholics who did not submit to the government's national church. The Catholic Encyclopedia excerpt also describes a "conception among Anglicans". Papist and Romanist are still used by fundamentalist Christians, e.g. Jack Chick tracts. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

History aside, the term "Roman Catholic" continues to be used today without irony by thousands of individual Catholics, Catholic parishes, and Dioceses to describe the church they are affiliated with that is led by the Pope. There is nothing wrong or improper about using the term today, especially to avoid ambiguity when discussing different churches. For instance, the private legislation in the US state of Connecticut giving religious groups certain rights and privileges, disambiguates between the Catholic Church and Episcopal Church as the "Roman Catholic Church" and "Protestant Episcopal Church" respectively. Both local churches covered by the law equally claim being both "catholic" and "episcopal" as adjectives, so the law uses the additional adjectives "Roman" and "Protestant" to disambiguate between them. This Wikipedia article is called "Catholic Church", because that name is the most common and most official name for an international organization, that is locally organized under hundreds of different laws. "Roman Catholic" is an acceptable secondary name to avoid ambiguity; both are commonly used contemporarily with little concern for any historical baggage. If fact, most concordats signed by the Holy See and the respective host state within the past few hundred years tend to use a long string of adjectives to legally designate which church is involved, has as "Holy", "Roman", "Catholic" and/or "Apostolic" (example: Guatemala 1854). The church has no specific official universally recognized name, so we default in Wikipedia to the simplest name that is sufficiently distinct for most purposes "Catholic Church", extending to "Roman Catholic Church" when helpful and appropriate. --Zfish118^⋉talk 18:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Zfish118 states the matter well & I agree. Rjensen (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Off topic -- i.e. not about the Catholic Church -- but the Episcopal Church in the U.S. has been called officially the "Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States" for centuries, though now there are other names. Personally I use the RC and C terms relatively interchangeably depending upon the context, specifically which English I am using and what I am trying to contrast. Here in the Philippines -- which has the second largest English-speaking Catholic population (after the US) -- it's almost always just plain "Catholic" and usually contrasted with "Evangelical". In my experience "Roman Catholic" is not common except around Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics, including Anglican Ordinariates in full communion with Rome. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want a real headache, in some other languages, the equivalent to "Roman Catholic" refers to the Greek Orthodox (ie, the Church of New Rome - Constantinople). --Zfish118^⋉talk 05:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Zfish118: It's not that I disagree with any of that. But you still see the argument that "Roman" is needed to disambiguate "Catholic." The history I gave above debunks this claim. Gulangyu (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You are citing an encyclopedia article that is at least 103 years old. I am referring to strictly contemporary usage, not the usage a century ago. Thousands of Catholic Parishes say "Roman Catholic Church" on their welcome signs; Roman Catholic is often incorporated into their legal operating name. There is no reason to believe that these parishes wish to deny the exclusive teachings of the their parent church and diocese. Wikipedia article must simply acknowledge this fact that numerous Catholic affiliates self-identify as "Roman Catholic"; there nothing disparaging about using the name that Catholics use to describe themselves. When discussing several churches in the same article, there is no reason we must write convoluted sentences to avoid the word "Roman". --Zfish118^⋉talk 14:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I checked the current edition of OED. It's not online, but it has the same usage note as the edition quoted in Catholic Encyclopedia. Someone should check New Catholic Encyclopedia, but I seriously doubt they recommend using "Roman Catholic." We should follow best practices, not what some random, unspecified church puts on its welcome sign. Gulangyu (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

We are not talking about "some random" church. We are talking about 1000's perhaps a majority (at least in the United States), where many are legally incorporated with the words "Roman Catholic" in the parish name. And even then, Roman Catholic is a secondary name primarily used to avoid ambiguity. It is ridiculous to deny this, and and potentially confusing to purposefully avoid using "Roman" when it is still very commonly used. --Zfish118^⋉talk 21:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Zfish118, Farsight001, Rjensen, Afterwriting, Iloilo Wanderer, and Crusadestudent all make great points especially about simplicity, perceptions, and that "It is never used to only mean the Latin Church". Afterwriting reminded that there is a Roman Catholic (term) article. I think this discussion should be closed or moved to Talk:Roman Catholic (term) – Catholic Church should continue to be used in this article and many others. There are many articles where Roman Catholic Church is better to use. Gulangyu pointed out that there is a difference between Catholic and Protestant usage. There is no style manual for Catholic articles like MOS:LDS or naming conventions like WP:NCLDS. Maybe there should be a few sentence long guide about Catholic Church article naming conventions that condenses Talk:Catholic Church archived discussions about Catholic (term) and Roman Catholic (term). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I started a user essay yesterday, actually, based on the post above at user:zfish118/Roman Catholic that might be the basis of such a projectwide style guide. Anyone who wishes is invited to help revise or expand the essay. [edit to add] Actually, an MOS supplement for WP:Catholicism would be very helpful, as there are various categorizing conventions, clergy article standards, etc, that exist, but have limited documentation for outsiders. This would be very helpful for various editors to add their best practices to some central page. --Zfish118^⋉talk 21:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe the title Theotokos should be added to the sentence "The Catholic Church venerates Mary as Mother of God and Queen of Heaven and practises numerous Marian devotions" in the intro, after the phrase "Mother of God", so it would read: "The Catholic Church venerates Mary as Mother of God, Theotokos, and Queen of Heaven and practises numerous Marian devotions".

My edit to add this was reverted for not being "specific to Catholic teaching". I have no clue what the other editor means by this; it is very much a Catholic title for Mary, as much as Mater Dei or Regina Coeli. Nothing in the sentence indicates that it is intended to show only aspects of Catholicism that differ drastically from other Christian traditions, so I see no reason not to include this nontrivial title. (It's not like I'm asking to add "Our Lady, Undoer of Knots" to the intro.) Crusadestudent (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

"Theotokos" is already discussed in the Mariology article wikilinked under "Mother of God"; as a near synonym for "Mother of God" I do not see a strong need to include it, especially since the article it links to is not specific to Catholic teaching. --Zfish118^⋉talk 23:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

My reason for wanting to include it is that it often goes neglected; even many Catholics have never heard of it before. Putting it in the introduction would be a good way to educate readers about the title painlessly, instead of having to dig down into the Mariology section to stumble across it. Crusadestudent (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't "educate" readers (or each other) by mentioning lots of obscure terms in summary sections, paragraphs or article leads. To do so is distracting and gives them undue prominence. --Mirokado (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mirokado: That argument would work for "Our Lady Undoer of Knots", but not for one of the most fundamental titles of Mary, and certainly not for the only dogmatically defined one. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"Theotokos" is already piped from "Mother of God" as one of the four dogmas. Perhaps you could add a summary of the Catholic doctrine to the Theotokos page. --Zfish118^⋉talk 14:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The difference between Theotokos, Mater Dei, and Mother of God are technical. They are synonymous in an overview. I think linked Mother of God is descriptive enough in this article. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Zfish118: I'll look into that. Everyone: Would you consider this as a compromise?: "... as Mother of God (Theotokos) and Queen of Heaven..." Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

How about here instead? --Zfish118^⋉talk 20:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly appropriate there. (I switched it to the lang-el template.) I still think a quick parenthetical in the lead would be appropriate, though. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI, nearly every line of the lead has been discussed endlessly by many editors over the years, often with other editors banging their head against the nearest hard object. While the lead is not perfect in its current form, starting a WP:request for comments over the inclusion of a single word seems excessive, especially without a clear question being asked for comment. Often, it is best to produce a draft of a proposed change, such as on the talkpage. Perhaps propose a full rewrite of the Mary paragraph that might avoid duplicate phrasing, and request input on the draft. In my opinion though, mentioning Theotokos in the body of the article using the lang-el template is sufficient. Mentioning it again, without going into the history or technical meaning, is redundant. This article is meant to be a broad overview of the Catholic Church for people who may never have heard of it before, as well as advanced users looking for more specialized content through the Wiki links. There are thousands of important technical terms and (even dogmas!) that are too specific for a general audience. Translating Greek terms is generally beyond the scope of the main article, although we made an exception for Transubstantation. --Zfish118^⋉talk 00:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone actually opposed to having the lang-la template in the lead sentence, or can we all recognize that the note there was intended to deal with the "Roman" issue? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, the lead has been very carefully negotiated over several years. Major changes are not likely to be accepted. As for discussion of the Latin name, that might better fit in the "name" subsection. As a friendly warning, making edits that are consistently reverted can be WP:disruptive to other editors, and WP:administrators may choose to limit which topics a disruptive editor is permitted to work on, or suspend an directors account. The Catholic Church, having achieved WP:Good article status, is closely watched by many editors to avoid it being harmed by well-meaning but low quality edits. This article has actually been relisted and delisted as a good article several times over the past decade, and we wish to avoid that again. To avoid being disciplined as a disruptive editor, I would strongly recommend you choose to focus on less visible articles, or portions of articles and make until you get a better understanding of Wikipedia's processes. Not every edit should turn into a multi-page discussion; that is just tedious for everyone involved. --Zfish118^⋉talk 05:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The note there was intended to deal with the whole of the opening sentence and not just the "Roman" issue. This sentence was subjected to a prolonged consensus process and this needs to be respected by all editors. At least you are now bringing this matter for discussion instead of being disruptive. Afterwriting (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: Maybe you should direct (some of) your ire at User:Chicbyaccident, who put it there in the first place. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

... is there any particular part of this article that shouldn't be edited (constructively), besides the lead? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Crusadestudent: My suggestion is, before making major changes, thoroughly inform yourself about the history of this article's Good Article status. Search the archives for "Good Article" (including the quotation marks), and read every comment, especially comments when the article was reviewed for GA. Read WP:Good article. Then if you think there is a possibility that your edit might be contrary to the changes that brought the article up to GA status, discuss here first. That might avoid a lot of needless battles. Also don't make huge changes in a single edit; that makes it harder to narrow down where the problems might be. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

My best suggestion would be to review the most recent articles on this topic in leading reference sources, like the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion and the recent German Religion Past and Present and see if the structure or contents of their articles are in any significant way different from our article here, and, if they are, maybe point those differences out here on the article talk page. John Carter (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is currently inconsistent regarding capitalising the word "pope". Although the MoS treats the position as a generic one, there seems to be a strong case for, at least sometimes, treating it as a proper one and capitalising it as "Pope" even when not followed by a name, at least when referring to "the Pope" and not just "a pope" or "popes". The Pope article already generally follows this practice. Those of us who want to base arguments on what the main article on a subject does might want to take note of this. What do others think? Afterwriting (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It's like any other title. It should be capitalized when it's a substitute for the name (which shouldn't happen much in an encyclopedia article) or put immediately before the name. That's what any style guide would tell you. That having been said, titles of all kinds are capitalized all over place. It's too common a practice to do much about it. Gulangyu~~ (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I think pope like bishop is generic and should be lowercase and only capitalized before a name. While documents on vatican.va do capitalize, I do not know what additional meaning capitalization adds, e.g. "being the Church, [...] the community of the faithful on earth under the leadership of the Pope, the common Head, and of the bishops in communion with him." (CCC 899) Head is capitalized in this example and I do not know what additional meaning that capitalization adds either. In contrast, capitalization of Church, as a proper noun, does add meaning. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with BoBo. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• If the quote above is any indication, I certainly hope we don't follow the Vatican on capitalization issues. Here is Chicago Manual: "The University of Chicago Press considers almost all titles to be generic unless they are used as part of a name. Practically no one gets special treatment—neither the pope nor the president of the United States."[3] Gulangyu (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what certain style guides may think, is there not a good case for arguing that "the Pope" is no different as a proper name of a position as, for instance, "the Archbishop of of Canterbury" or "the Ecumenical Patriarch"? Most style guides probably don't suggest that we should write "the archbishop of Canterbury" or "the ecumenical patriarch". I do not see how "the Pope" is essentially different in this matter. Afterwriting (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You may have a point about the parallel cases you mentioned above, but I think that point might be better raised at one of the MOS pages. Personally, I think in most cases when "the pope" being referred to is a specific individual who has held the position of pope, the "Pope" should be capitalized. For the comparatively few cases where we would be obliged to speak of "the pope" in a generic sense, maybe we might best leave it uncapitalized, or, better yet, use something like the phrasing' "position of the pope" to emphasize that what is being discussed is not a single individual, but the position as a position itself. Also, I suppose, we should also raise these concerns at MOS regarding the leader of the Coptic Church, who also is frequently referred to by the title of pope. John Carter (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• New Catholic Encyclopedia appears to be more carefully edited than the Vatican website. Here is an example of a lower case "pope" from their "Papacy" article: "The title deed for the pope's action was at least implied in the Donation of Constantine." (Vol. 10, p. 836) Gulangyu (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Both ⟨Pope⟩ (when not followed by a name) and ⟨pope⟩ act like a common noun and are usually preceded by the definite article the. They are not a proper noun that needs to be capitalized. A University of Oxford Style Guide's example is: "The current pope, Pope Francis, is Argentine." (p. 17) It prescribes "capitals for titles prefixing names, but not for job descriptions." Loyola University Editorial Style Guide's example is: "The first Polish pope was Pope John Paul II." The Economist Style Guide describes Afterwriting's case "upper case for ranks and titles when written in conjunction with a name, but lower case when on their own. Thus [...] Pope Benedict, but the pope" and "Some titles serve as names, and therefore have initial capitals, though they also serve as descriptions: the Archbishop of Canterbury, [...] If you want to describe the office rather than the individual, use lower case: The next archbishop of Canterbury will be a woman." –BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you all think this or some improved version of it might be appropriate for the lead? I was thinking of placing it after "... emphases in the Church."

The Catholic Church is unique in that its union of the 24 particular churches blurs the line between Western and Eastern Christianity.^{[note 1]}

Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Some improved information of this kind could be appropriate for the lead in my view. However, "blurs the line" is not the kind of phrasing we should use and, as you have indicated yourself, the Roman Catholic Church is not actually "unique" in this regard. Something is either unique or it isn't. So there needs to be rewriting with more precise wording. I also suggest you wait a few days for other people's ideas and suggestions about its inclusion in the lead and the form of words. Afterwriting (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I might prefer something more along the lines of saying that the Catholic Church as a single entity incorporates multiple subentities with different histories. I might myself lay a lot less stress on the Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity aspects, because those are, basically, more dependent on the church bodies and their traditions than anything else, although the phrasing used seems to somewhat imply otherwise. Also, there is the matter of the personal ordinariates to deal with, which are. basically, additional "Western" Christian groupings which will almost certainly become another particular church as soon as it gets someone who meets the Catholic standards for a bishop (unmarried) to head it, and the at this point still I think theoretical ordinariate or grouping which might be founded as being a Lutheran tradition entity within the Catholic Church. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Do the two paragraphs on Marian devotions really belong in a section on doctrine? Seems more like a practice than a doctrine. (I'm not referring to the summary of Mariology that immediately precedes these; that is unambiguously appropriate.) On the other hand, I don't see any other sections that might be more appropriate for it. Should we expand to include a general section on "Other practices" (i.e. those not included in "Sacraments" or "Liturgy")? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The content about Mary and her devotions has been in the article since time immortal. About a year ago, I expanded it to include a third paragraph about devotions in general (hence "Virgin Mary and devotions"). The sacraments were still part of the doctrine section at this time. Devotions are not quite doctrine, and I considered splitting it, but left it to the judgement of another because I wasn't sure where to put it instead. I do not quite like the idea of splitting the Marian devotions from the Marian Doctrines, but I share your concern about devotions and pious practices not necessarily being "doctrine". This is definitely a good topic to discuss to see if a better way of presenting the information can be presented! --Zfish118^⋉talk 05:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Crusadestudent and Zfish118: veneration of Mary is important but that popular piety is not doctrine – a popular piety section or even better a short article would be nice. See Directory on popular piety and the liturgy for ideas. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu and Zfish118: That's what I was thinking. But I think Marian veneration rises at least slightly above mere "popular piety"—it's been encouraged over and over by popes, bishops, and saints. That's why I suggested "Other practices" as a section name. What are your thoughts on that? A popular piety short article sounds like a very good idea, though. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The MOS very clearly states both here and here that "Spiritual or religious events are capitalized only when referring to specific incidents or periods".

A certain someone seems to think that this doesn't apply to the Assumption of Mary—clearly an incident, clearly a specific one, and clearly [s]piritual or religious. Yet he/she (?) keeps reverting this and other analogous edits.

My edits to capitalize this and other analogous instances have always been "with reference to the Manual of Style instead of merely personal preference", per this user's personal page.

Please discuss.

Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

And now the Immaculate Conception isn't a specific spiritual or religious event, either. Go figure. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

That "certain someone" is myself. There is a legitimate question as to whether "Immaculate Conception", "Assumption" and other terms such as "incarnation" and "resurrection" should be capitalised or not in some contexts. Despite what the MoS might appear to suggest to some minds, it does not clearly apply to "events" such as these but, as it makes clear, to such things as "the Great Flood" and "the Exodus". Afterwriting (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: How are those events any more event-y than the Assumption or the IC??? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Mentioned in the Bible or not, they're recorded in the "sacred tradition" of the Church. They're things that happened (i.e. incidents or events), and they're religious/spiritual things that happened, and they're VERY specific. Not sure how much clearer it could be. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

If you think the MOS made a bad call, initiate the process to review that provision. But in the meantime, follow it. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Before you try to argue that they're "doctrines" and not "real events":

• The Great Flood is no more verifiable than they.
• There are doctrines about the events, and they may share identical names, but they're still events.
• It would be unreasonable to argue that only the events mentioned in the examples given qualify.

Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous comments. If you think that "Spiritual or religious events are capitalized only when referring to specific incidents or periods" applies to all such spiritual and religious things then we would have to start using capitalisations such as "The Ordination of John Smith took place after the bishop's Prayers" because the ordination and prayers were "religious/spiritual things that happened". Afterwriting (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Those aren't specific in the same way. Straw man. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

If the vast majority of RS capitalized "The Ordination of John Smith" then we would too. But they wouldn't. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

When referred to in passively indirectly (including her Immaculate Conception without original sin), capitalization does not seem appropriate; when the main topic (proclaimed the Immaculate Conception as dogma), capitalization seems appropriate. --Zfish118^⋉talk 14:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The appropriate venue for this discussion is WT:MOS. Please move it there instead of cluttering this talk page. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it's here. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not an error in the Manual of Style. In this article, the Immaculate Conception is referred to three times: once in the lead, once in the Mary section, and once in the history section. In the history section, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is discussed, hence it is proper to capitalize the phrase. In the lead, the conception of Mary is discussed; "immaculate" is only descriptive in this context. If it is omitted, the sentence is still coherent, ie "teachings include the conception of Mary without original sin." It is not a well phrased sentence, and if some were to propose a direct reference to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception rather the current indirect phrasing, that would be a productive edit. --Zfish118^⋉talk 15:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

What nonsense! You cannot pretend that "immaculate" is being used as a normal "descriptive" term in any of these. Uncapitalized, "immaculate conception" has literally no meaning in English, and is certainly not "coherent". The event is the dogma, and vice versa. It is completely absurd to try and distinguish between them. Ary there ANY RS that DON'T capitalize Immaculate Conception? No. Amazingly, Crusadestudent is for once right. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not "nonsense" at all. Zfish118's comments reflect common sense and correct contemporary English style. Capitalisation when referring to the name of the dogma or used as a title for Mary and no capitalisation when only being used descriptively. Afterwriting (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Examples from good RS? Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Johnbod here. The specific phrase "Immaculate Conception" is, to the best of my knowledge, used exclusively in terms of Mary. On its own, the word "immaculate" in English is at least all but incoherent in terms of conception of children, and it certainly is not one that I can imagine being used as a descriptive adjective under these circumstances in any other capacity. It is also, at times, used as a alternate name for Mary, such as her reportedly saying of herself "I am the Immaculate Conception" at Lourdes. Considering that the dogmatic belief is also an alternative name for the single person that dogmatic belief applies to, I have to assume that like any other "alternative" name it should be capitalized. Having said that, I agree with Zfish118, that the existing phrasing is at best awkward. This may well be one of the probably numerous cases where we in wikipedia might best try to use such a uniquely descriptive term in only certain contexts and in stylistically well-constructed sentences, to take into account the rather unusual nature of the phrase in question. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 1 June 20y16 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is the particular usage here, not whether "Immaculate Conception" is a proper noun in most cases. --Zfish118^⋉talk 21:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case, the best thing to do would probably be to adjust the phrasing in such a way as (1) the term isn't used at all, or (2) the term is used in the sentence as a form of proper noun. John Carter (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I had already rephrased things to do just this, referring to "the Immaculate Conception" (instead of "her immaculate conception") as the proper name of the dogma. This should resolve things. Afterwriting (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

My two cents is that the "the"/"her" dichotomy is no difference at all, since the specificity of the event necessitates it being hers. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 23:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a very clear grammatical difference which you have failed to understand. Your comments reflect an interpretation of the MoS on "spiritual events". I do not believe that the MoS on this matter is as clear as you think. I have a different interpretation. We can bang on about this forever if you want to but as far as I'm concerned my rephrasing should have now resolved things. Afterwriting (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, that's just my 2¢. I'm still remaining neutral for a while on this article. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 01:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The term Immaculate Conception has more than one dictionary sense: the event (capitalized) and the commemoration of the event (capitalized) – it is capitalized in dictionaries.[4][5][6] The term assumption of Mary does not have separate dictionary entries because it is a sum of its parts; but two senses are found under assumption: the event (often capitalized) and the commemoration of the event (capitalized).[7][8][9] I think after the first instance of Immaculate Conception using plain "conception" is least confusing. John Carter brought up a different case of "I am the Immaculate Conception", I think that is more mystical akin to the language used by Catholic evangelists in this youtube video.[10] I think "incarnation" and "resurrection" should not be capitalized. The USCCB glossary is clear on this: "Terms are capitalized only if they are always capitalized."[11] Catholic Univeristy School of Canon Law style sheet: "Preference is for less capitalization rather than more."p. 4 –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Usage in two primary sources would seem to suggest that "immaculate conception" is not necessarily a proper noun phrase in all contexts. Examples from a translation of Ineffabilis Deus:

• ...as continued to teach this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin....
• ...God's own Mother, under the title of "The Immaculate Conception."...
• ...including the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary...
• ...and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot....
• ...Speaking of the conception of the Virgin...
• ...in the first instance of her conception...

It would seem that Ineffabilis never describes the event as "her immaculate conception" or "her Immaculate Conception; it is either "the Immaculate Conception" or "The Immaculate Conception" when discussing the event or the doctrine. The phrase is only treated in the document as a proper noun phrase when referred to with the definite article, and never a possessive adjective. When the words are used apart, they are treated regular adjectives and nouns, rather than proper nouns, even when accompanied by the possessive adjectives. The phrase that had previously been used in this article "her immaculate conception without original sin", would seem to be an irregular use, given how the phrase is used in the originating document. Largely similar usage is found in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article, with a few notable variations:

• "...in the first instance of her conception..."
• ...which includes particularly the implicit belief in the immaculateness of her conception,...
• ...This form of the thesis excluded an immaculate conception....
• ...that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn...*

The OCE does include an examples where an unqualified reference to "her Immaculate Conception" is accepted. It also shows that the phrase can be generic if not specifically referring to a particular individual's conception. It also shows that at least some adjective forms of "immaculate" (such as "immaculateness") can be purely descriptive of "conception", rather than by automatically forming a proper noun phrase. --Zfish118^⋉talk 02:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Zfish118: I agree, e.g. Jesus was also immaculately conceived yet Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

To any interested and knowledgeable editors, help is needed at Christian perfection. As of now, the section on Catholic teaching is not very informative. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

An editor is introducing a modifier to the lead ("by some"). "From the late 20th century, the Catholic Church has been criticised [by some] for its doctrines on sexuality, its refusal to ordain women and its handling of sexual abuse cases." I believe this modifier adds no clarity and should be removed, per WP:Weasel. --Zfish118^⋉talk 02:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "by some" is vague and weasel words. However, it does raise a question about how specific that part of the lead needs to be. I'm not suggesting specific changes, but I think it's worthy of discussion. Criticism "by some" from outside the Church is not as noteworthy as criticism from within the Church, at least in my opinion. There is substantial criticism within the Church about each of those issues, especially contraception and sexual abuse cases. I'm not sure how the wording could be tweaked in the lead to make mention of that, but I'd like to hear what others think. Sundayclose (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "by some" is too vague, but I also agree that the sentence needs to say "by who" it "has been criticised". Amqui (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

There are critics at nearly every level of society: local, national, supranational; both internal and external. The criticism is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead, but getting into too much detail becomes problematic: mentioning only a few sources of the criticism is not neutral; mentioning them all is not balanced. --Zfish118^⋉talk 23:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The phrasing "by some" however is particularly problematic. Any individual or group in the public eye tends to be criticized for their positions by those who have taken positions on the "other side" of those issues. That, really, isn't particularly important. Now, if it has other churches which disagree with its positions (and it does) that might be worth mentioning. It also might be worth mentioning that most of these issues raised relate to recent social changes, and it might, maybe, be best to just say that the church has received criticism for not necessarily acting in accord with what (might, in some cases) just be a matter of the current social zeitgeist. Maybe a better approach might be to say that the church's refusal to change its positions on what it might see as moral or administrative matters despite those positions being out of line with many of the views on those subjects in the broader society. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

One possible solution might be to introduce a wiki-link to the Sexual revolution article, possibly piping from "From the late 20th century..." or something to the effect of "In in light of changing cultural norm regarding sexuality in the 20th century, especially in the western hemisphere, ...". The last clause would need to be reworked, as criticism regarding sexual abuse has only tangential relevance to changing cultural norms. --Zfish118^⋉talk 04:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a stylistic comment: I wouldn't pipelink "late 20th century" to "sexual revolution". See WP:EASTEREGG. Sundayclose (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If this is not the appropriate place to post this, feel free to take it down. I'm putting it here so the relevant editors see it.

As a gesture of good will, I'm going to take the advice of @Zfish118: and take some time away from this article for a couple of weeks. In the meantime I'll only come back if I notice blatant typos or blatant vandalism. Please take this as a sign that despite my habit of getting myself into arguments with other editors, I really do want this article and others to be the best they can be. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

(I do not intend this to include uncontroversial, productive talk page discussions.) Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it's been about a month. I'll be back to editing here when I see something constructive I can do. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 15:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC) (formerly Crusadestudent)

"The Latin Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as institutes such as mendicant orders and enclosed monastic orders, reflect a variety of theological and spiritual emphases in the Church."

This makes it sound as if the orders are divorced from the Latin and Eastern particular churches (e.g. that Franciscans cannot be Maronites, or that no Ukranian Greek Catholic is a Carmelite), which is not the case if I'm not mistaken. juju (hajime! | waza) 05:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I don't even know how the wording became what is. Here is the original discussion on the addition of the idea, with a different wording: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_52#Lead_needs_to_at_least_imply_the_existence_of_Eastern_Catholics.2C_and_should_probably_mention_them_explicitly.

I believe the original wording was: "Within the Catholic Church, there are a variety of different doctrinal and theological emphases. These may be most visible between the various Particular churches, including the Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as between the religious orders like the Jesuits and the Dominicans."--Coquidragon (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

a) I don't think it does, especially, and b) I think orders are normally restricted to one rite. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the new working is less clear that the original wording, and Jujutsuan's question is a clear example of ambiguities that could arise.

Also, Johnbod, what do you mean by "restricted to one rite." Some orders have the privilege of having their own rites, whether they are used or not today (ie. Benedictine, Dominicans). Some orders have members from different rites (ie. Although most Jesuits are of Latin rite, there are some of the Byzantine, Maronite, Siro-Malabar, and Ukrainian Church, among others, and hence belonging to their respective rites.--Coquidragon (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to go ahead and propose a new wording in the article. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I never really got a straight answer before... does anyone oppose the addition of the Latin name (i.e. Ecclesia catholica) to the first sentence? Latin is the official language of the Church, and the articles on Church documents generally list both their Latin and English names. It would look like this:

"The Catholic Church (Latin: Ecclesia catholica), also known as..."

Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 16:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems kind of clunky up there, but I have no strong opinion on the matter. If it included in the sidebar, I don't see the need to merely repeat in the lead. --Zfish118^⋉talk 22:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Zfish118. Prefer not to include. Sundayclose (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I oppose it. It's not needed in the opening sentence. It belongs in the info box where it already appears. The opening sentence is already long and adding more information to it which already appears in a more appropriate place is not helpful. Afterwriting (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, those seem like reasonable rationales against inclusion. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 00:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

However, is it valid to have the font size of "Catholic Church" enlarged in the infobox, and if so why, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead section currently states: "From the late 20th century, the Catholic Church has been criticised for its doctrines on sexuality, its refusal to ordain women and its handling of sexual abuse cases." However, this arguable says little in a global, broadly historical perspective. It is arguably too Western-centered and 20th century related a sentence. What about expanding it or at least changing it to something encompassing more of the Anti-Catholicism met by the church during its history around the world, including in these days - being the majority of a religion considered the most persecuted in the world as we speak? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. 50-100 years of one type of criticism do not warrant a place in the lead of an article about a 2,000 year old institution. Instaurare (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Those three areas of criticism don't necessarily apply only to the time from the late 20th century, but I don't see how they are "too Western-centered". Are you saying that those problems are predominantly Western, because they're not? Sundayclose (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence shouldn't be in the introduction. Indeed I would cut the intro significantly. With such a big topic, it is hard to summarize. I would remove everything except the first two paragraphs, and then merge those two paragraphs into one, significantly rewriting the second paragraph. The intro makes it sound like the seven sacraments, the Marian devotions, the social teaching as well as the late 20th century criticism are unique to the Catholic Church and are therefore definitional. I would suggest a short, simple just-the-facts introduction followed by sections that are short introductions to the topics with prominent "Main article" tags. I would suggest a short, sweet intro that says something like:

"The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church, with more than 1.27 billion members worldwide. As one of the oldest religious institutions in the world, it has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilisation. Headed by the Bishop of Rome, known as the pope, its doctrines are summarised in the Nicene Creed. The Catholic Church is notable within Western Christianity for its sacred tradition and seven sacraments. The Catholic Church consists of the dominant western Latin Church and several, much smaller Eastern Catholic Churches. Within these particular churches are various institutes such as mendicant orders and enclosed monastic orders, which reflect a variety of theological and spiritual emphases in the Church."--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This would violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:

• "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." ... "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."
• "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."

A single-paragraph introduction could not accomplish this. Also you fail to summarize the section "Social and cultural issues" which does cover most of the modern controversies. Also the negative role this Church has played in the development of Western civilisation is downplayed. There is nothing on the Investiture Controversy, the Crusades, the Western schism, the Counter-Reformation, the Roman Question. Nothing about Papal claims to power, or anything about the Church's history of religious intolerance. Dimadick (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm for instance thinking about Christianity being the most persecuted religion currently, and the Catholic Church being the largest Christian church. This could perhaps be included in the bottom paragraph mentioned, if not also the a few words about the historical conditions in the same fashion. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 14:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I've started an RfC about the title of this article and the name of the article on the Orthodox church. The RfC is found here; I suggest keeping the discussion in one place. Jeppiz (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We've been over this before and my own viewpoint that "pope" can be capitalised as the proper name of a particular ministry was not supported by many others. The MoS treats the word as generic and says it shouldn't be capitalised by itself. The Catholic Church article consistently uses "pope" except in quotations so the disambiguation information at the top should do so as well (even though the Pope article is inconsistent as are many church publications). Afterwriting (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Uppercase "P" for a particular pope; lowercase "pope" for the general term. Sundayclose (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The accepted convention is lower case for popes in general, and capital for a specific person, eg., "Pope Francis is the current pope". Similarly, bishop, priest, deacon, do not need to be capitalized unless referring to a specific individual, Bishop Andrew, Deacon James, etc. Protoclete (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130813100622/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906031754/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160818210304/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141214210357/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P2C.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2C.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130904181017/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923233927/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906031754/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906031754/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130813100622/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906031754/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211202206/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609042414/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3P.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3P.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609042650/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3W.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3W.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150101045530/https://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150101045530/https://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100929015429/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xI2Wz6n5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fpaul_vi%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xI2Wz6n5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fpaul_vi%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080221180735/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635185276/Benedicts-encyclical-offers-hope-for-world.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101202340/http://w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html to http://w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220062727/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206111318/http://www.vatican.va// to http://www.vatican.va/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Dioceses do indeed count as particular churches. However, I'm wondering whether the current presentation is really convenient? That is why I propose this modification:

Churches | Latin Church
sui iuris: | Eastern Catholic churches: 23
Dioceses: | Archdioceses: X
Regular dioceses: X

The advantage of such a modification would be a little less space needed, while sparing the information that both of the variables apply to particular churches, somethimg that could well be pointed out in the content of the articles, perhaps. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's extremely unclear what you are proposing (the section above also). Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, Sorry. I meant like this. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Attempt to an overview of the existing few pages related to the Catholic Church and the Glossary of the Catholic Church.

Immediately related

• Catholic Church (disambiguation)
• Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation)

Related

• Catholicism (containing content about and having a redirect from "Catholicity")
• Catholic (term)
• Catholic (disambiguation)
• Roman Catholic (term)
• Roman Catholic (disambiguation)
• Western Catholic (disambiguation)
• Evangelical Catholic

Indirectly related

• Eastern Catholic (disambiguation)
• Four Marks of the Church
• One true church

I think that's all, although feel free to add or edit. All of these are contained or could be said to be contained under . Most if not all of the above have equivalent articles on Wiktionary. Also, most if not all have more or less overlapping content. That is completely natural in the case of Wikitionary. However, my question is to what agree that separation and overlapping is motivated in the Wikipedia realm, please? Are every single on of these articles motivated standing alone rather than as merged into another article as a section? Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 16:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: The question is whether all of these are really motivaed or if merges of one or more of them would be possible? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616060732/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P42.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P42.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419021937/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302070228/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061123_common-decl_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061123_common-decl_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206103358/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070402021624/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000901223734/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150721142407/http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2086%20%5B1994%5D%20-%20ocr.pdf to http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2086%20%5B1994%5D%20-%20ocr.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160418141521/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1Y.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1Y.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906142233/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017073250/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906142233/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628185335/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P42.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P42.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816040600/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628185335/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P42.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P42.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628185335/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P42.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P42.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609042345/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3N.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3N.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609042345/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3N.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3N.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609042345/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3N.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3N.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218110036/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P3R.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3R.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080219141242/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P1D.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1D.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130813092321/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130813092321/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125234700/http://w2.vatican.va:80/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html to http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220214550/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027122758/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027122758/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402092429/http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,635185276,00.html to http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,635185276,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101202340/http://w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html to http://w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206103358/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

What applies to links to this article in terms of its name? I'm referring, for instance, to this edit. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

If alternative redirect links exists then they can be used as appropriate. See WP:NOTBROKEN, MOS:NOPIPE and WP:NOPIPE. Links to Roman Catholic Church instead of Catholic Church are not only entirely acceptable but also often preferable. Afterwriting (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the rules you linked apply to the issue, do they? And with what arguments would your proposed solution be preferable, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The Visual Editor, at least in the past, did not allow redirects and instead substituted piping. Many piping instances are thus unintended. --Zfish118^⋉talk 09:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).