Talk:Catholicity/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Fresh page

In addition to the very short statement on Holy Matrimony given in the article, it is important to add the following: Marriage, as seen in the Church, as a Sacrament, is indeed a consecration of the unity of two persons in human love and in faith, for the purpose of building up the Body of Christ, the Church. It also represents or symbolizes the very unity of the Church itself. In the Sacrament two people become one body; they are therefore no longer two but share one body in Christ. This intimate unity with one another as ONE in Christ, symbolizes the effect of Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist. The individual person in Baptism is "incorporated" into the Body of Christ. In Confirmation the Holy Spirit dwelling within them is further strengthened and conferred to enable them to proclaim by their lives what they have become. The Eucharist is a sacrificial banquet of unity in Christ, wherein the individual person receives the Body and Blood of Christ as a sign of what he or sehe has become and is intimately linked to Christ Himself in the sacrifice of His Body and Blood to the Father wherein all are lifted up in salvation and the expiation of their sins. Thus in a greater sense the faithful all represent Christ Himself as His living body in the world. This incorporation into Christ is the source, from Christ's redemptive act, of the salvation of the individual. Having been "born" into the life of Christ, all the faithful share the one life of the redeemer, and are therefore "an acceptable sacrifice" as members of the kingdom of God both here and in eternity.

Marriage is a Symbol of that unity, sort of a "cameo" of the greater unity of the Church. Thus marriage, as a Sacrament, is not seen just as the private union of two people, but as a public sign of the unifying power of God's love and redemption. The two become two in one flesh, the flesh of Christ, and their physical union is seen as a "Holy Sign" (Sacrament) of the unity of the whole Church as the mystical Body of Christ.

Please remember NPOV

Dogface, your edits of September 21, 2004 seem to be aimed at promoting POV, not removing it. "Rome claimed an authority" captures the fact that Rome said it, and that it is not necessarily true just because Rome said it; is there any actual reason to change it to the less neutral "Rome alleged special authority"? Did you realize that your edits put the same information twice into the sentence that follows? The sentence already said that the church of Antioch was older than the church of Rome; why was it necessary to add that information a second time after an mdash?

In short, I question the necessity and wisdom of these edits. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually I think the article is much more NPOV than it used to be (when it was pure catechism a while back). However a hang-over seems to be that all the external links are Roman Catholic. Can anyone propose appropriate links to other groups calling themselves "Catholic"? --BozMo|talk 13:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, it may be true that this article has been less NPOV than it is now. The point that I'm making which that doesn't address is that the edits I mentioned (changing the factual "claimed" to the slanted "alleged", for example) are a step in the wrong direction, away from NPOV. I think they should be changed back. Of course, if someone has a defense of these edits, that shows how they fit with NPOV, please bring it up here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sure, sorry. I wasn't defending the alleged bit etc which I completely agree is not NPOV. --BozMo|talk 11:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I changed "alleged" to "claimed," as the world "alleged" carries with it an implied value judgement. The article provides enough information that readers can make their own judgement, without us leading them there. I can see placing additional emphasis on St. Peter having founded the church at Antioch, since the church at Rome claimed special authority derived, in part, from St. Peter. It might read better, though, if that sentence were broken into two sentences. SWAdair | Talk 03:56, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Language in need of clarification by rephrasing

The article says:

All of the preceding groups, excepting non-Anglican Protestants, consider themselves to be fully and completely Catholic. Each of them, excepting the Anglicans, considers itself not only to be completely Catholic but to be exclusively Catholic, even if a different group happens to use the term "Catholic" in its name.

I would normally understand the statement that a church is "exclusively Catholic" to mean that it is Catholic and excludes all tendencies that conflict with Catholicism. That means the same thing, as far as I can see at this moment, as "completely Catholic", but whoever wrote the above obviously thinks "completely" and "exclusively" mean different things. The words after the phrase "exclusively Catholic" make me suspect that what is meant is that each of those groups claims that only it is Catholic and the others are not. If that is what is meant, it need to be rephrased to make it clear. Michael Hardy 20:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article says "While Rome claimed special authority descending from St. Peter and St. Paul, who died in Rome and were buried there, Constantinople had become the residence of the Emperor and the Senate." I think that sentence should read "...St. Peter and St. Paul, who are alleged to have died in Rome and were buried there..." Or better still: "...St. Peter and St. Paul, who according to tradition, died in Rome and were buried there..." To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Peter and Paul died in Rome.

Peter's relics were found again recently at St Peter's Basilica, Paul's mortal remains were given to Oswy, King of Britain, by Pope Vitalian in AD 665 according to Bede in Ecclesiastical History from Vatican library sources. Endomion 03:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed external links

I've removed the following material, from the "Additional reading" section: 

1 Brief organizational history of the Christian Church :
 http://www.freivald.org/~jake/church-history/index.html
 http://catholicity.elcore.net/MacCaffrey/HCCRFR_TOC.html
2 Evolution of the term "Catholicism" :
 http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/whycath.htm
 http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/What_Catholic_Means.html
 http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/cath.htm
3 "One, holy, catholic, and apostolic"
 http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/chmark.htm
4 The Roman Catholic Church
 http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/roman.htm
5 Other Catholic groups [Jesus established only One Church]:
 http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_46.htm

and from the "External links" section: 

 http://www.traditionalromancatholicism.com/saintsonthedogma.html
 http://www.traditionalromancatholicism.com/thechurchofchrist_2.html

So far there has been no discussion of the content of these links and no word on whether they reflect a consensus viewpoint or a disputed POV (with the note of "Jesus established only One Church", the latter seems more likely.) They should be added back in only if and when regular contributors can check their content and see which they are; if they contain information we would not accept as NPOV in the article itself, we should mark the link accordingly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And add to that the following links: 

6 Distinctive beliefs and practices (i.e., Catholicism)
 6.1 Beliefs
 6.2 Sacraments
  http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/index.html

-- Antaeus Feldspar 02:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just removed it again -- Chris 73 Talk 03:54, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

-- Seems the external links are getting too long. Perhaps web sites with double and sometimes even triple entries should be edited to one only?

Catholic and China

What triggered this gritch? [1]

Merge notice

The merge notices must come down. Catholic, Catholicism and Roman Catholic Church are separate ideas that can stand alone as separate articles. The problem we find is that these articles have overlapping information. The solution is not to merge them but to rewrite the articles correctly so that pertinent information is found in the article it belongs to. Further discussion on Roman Catholic Church. --Gerald Farinas 04:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beliefs

I don't like the following phrase:

"Most of the Roman Catholic Churches share certain essential distinctive beliefs and practices. The Anglicans differ among themselves on these matters."

"Most of the Roman Catholic Churches share" is wrong. It is all of the Roman Catholic Churches" or most "catholic Churches".

It must be decided whether the beliefs section is supposed to be give the Roman Catholic beliefs (as the title parantheses suggest) or on a broader scale (as the inclusion of Anglicans suggests).

Str1977 08:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed "Roman" from "most of the Roman Catholic Churches share", for the reasons given above. Str1977 22:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I think a distinction needs to be made between "beliefs" and "common practices." Candles, images, etc. are not required for practice of the Catholic faith. Mass can be held in a barn, as long as you have a priest to say it. The sign of the cross is also not a "belief." Doctrine is what is contained in the Catechism. Everything else is discipline and tradition (with a small "t"). MamaGeek Joy

first line assumes 2nd definition

I removed "as the worlds' largest Christian denomination" from "Catholicism as the worlds' largest Christian denomination, has two main ecclesiastical meanings, ...". This phrase assumes the second definition, i.e. that the term is really referring to the Roman Catholic Church. -- Chris 02:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eucharist

I have reverted Chanting Fox's revertion of an anonymous editor's definition of the Eucharist. The version added in by the anonymous editor does reflect general Catholic beliefs on the topic. The version put in by Chanting Fox does not. It isn't a matter of POV but an accurate representation of Catholic belief. In so much as it is POV at all, it is the POV of the organisation being described, not the person who did the edit. The only inaccuracy was in the distinction over adoration and worship, which is something strongly associated with Roman Catholicism and less strongly with general Catholicism. I have changed the wording of that line to reflect that. FearÉIREANN(talk) 20:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Traditionalist Catholic

We are having trouble editing traditionalist Catholic. We need more eyes to look and check, and please comment on Talk:Traditionalist Catholic. The issues are clear there. I would like a definition that includes anyone who thinks about restoring elements of Catholic practice, and another view is a person who thinks it should only be those who attend Tridentine Mass exclusivly. Please read and comment. Dominick 14:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


Request for information

I have set up the pages History of the Papacy - for a general overview, rather than the individual popes, Interreligious relations - the equivalent of International relations, and Women as theological figures to all of which contributions are welcome.

Jackiespeel 17:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't Catholic be merged here?

Sam Spade 12:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Catholic and Roman Catholic are two different terms. Catholic simply means universal and is used by other religious groups outside of the Roman Catholic church.

Confession to laymen as a sacramental (not a sacrament)

See the Summa http://www.newadvent.org/summa/500803.htm Malachias111 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Malachias, I have read the link and agree that you are technically right. However, the substance of what Thomas says is already included in the article and the insertion of such a specific term may be misleading. Str1977 18:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, no big deal either way. I reverted it with a "see Talk" thing but wouldn't be offended if the reference were removed. Thanks. Malachias111 18:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted back to Str1977's revert. I agree also that you're correct, Malachias, but feel that it might introduce confusion, unless further information is included (which could bloat the article a bit). For example, if you added extra bits to make it even more clear that what counts (apart from the contrition, of course) is the absolution, and that if there's no absolution, there's no sacrament. Adding that would make the article over long, in my view, at least for something that's not absolutely central to the subject. How about adding it to the article on Confession, if it's not there already? Or perhaps adding that link as a reference just after "doing such is actually encouraged within the Church"? (Maybe I should have done that myself instead of a straight revert.) AnnH (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

The list of links on this article appeared greatly excessive, so I removed a bunch:

As per WP:EL, links should be included to:

  1. Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one.
  2. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of an article. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  3. An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible.
  4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.
  5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.
  6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.

Many of these links appear to my untutored eye to duplicate what would more properly be an internal "see also" link (e.g. Catholic Answers (catholic.com) which should simply be a Wikilink to Apologetics; this is not to prejudge whether this link would be worthy of inclusion in Apologetics).

Input appreciated. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying, Just zis Guy, but I would argue that Catholics around the world would find vatican.va acceptable but newadvent.org not since it is a dated (1917, pre-Vatican II) directory that is often incorrect about the Catholic faith. One would have to agree that there are varying view points on what the term "catholic" means, thus reflected in a least some of these links? (unsigned 65.27.141.161)

The Catholic encyclopedia is a public source that is readily available. The CCC is a source that describes what Catholicism is, a single view, but it should be sources from a authoritative source, like the USCCB. There no plurality of viewpoints there, as far as offical Catholic opinion. Now you are right about people having a personal "catholic" definition, but that isnt the topic at hand, and his contention that the links should be under appropriate articles. Catholic Answers is a apolegetics organization not an arm of the Church. Dominick (TALK) 17:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dominick, again I do appreciate your defending the taking down many of these links, but there are many and various public sources, like the Catholic Encyclopedia, that one could argue describes what Catholicism is just like the CCC. In fact, perhaps one should consider a link to the CCC. I am just arguing that the actual information found in many, if not most, of the Catholic Encyclopedia found online, are not current since it was published in 1907. And, I should also point out, that the copyright does exist by Kevin Knight for its online edition:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

It is a fine resource for what it is, a dated encyclopedia of Catholicism. But much more has been done since 1907. Thanks! (now signed, 65.27.141.161 - sorry I did not in my earlier post - my bad...)

"There no plurality of viewpoints there, as far as the official Catholic opinion" -- which Dominick knows inside and out 'cause he has a personal pipeline to it and is so golldarned smart! Whatever that "offficial Catholic opinion is," you can bet it matches what Dominick thinks, no matter what the Church had taught for two thousand years! I wish all Catholics could be more like the sainted Dominick! [18:58, 3 January 2006 152.163.101.13 unsigned comment by the same anonymous editor who added a similar comment under "Catholic vs. Roman Catholic"]

Another PoV attack. I guess you told me, anonymously. Dominick (TALK) 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The Pope

Shouldn't there be a section in here discussing the Pope, his origins and what beliefs surround the office of the Pope?

Catholic vs. Roman Catholic

Careful, the Anglican Communion also believes in "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" :-)

OK, how's the para at the top? Will that do? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

So do traditional Catholics. But I guess Anglicans are more Catholic than the Pope, while poor little traditional Catholics who worship like their grandparents did are just a bunch of wannabe Catholics who don't deserve mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.13 (talk • contribs)

Well I would rather worship like the Catholic Church actually does, rather than what I think the Church did or should have done before. It is the reason why we have a living hierarchy. Look if you are going to snip little PoV quips, then take it to other forums, or have the guts to sign your name. Dominick (TALK) 17:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


If the Pope says black is white, then black is white. That is legal positivism and is condemned.

Pope St. Piux X condemned the following statements in Lamentabili Sane Exitu:

53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.

54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.

58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.

59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places


From Sacrorum Antistitum, the oath taken by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries from 1910 until Vatican II: "Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely."

Ever read Pascendi Dominici Gregis? Whatever happened to those "partistans of error" who "are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open"?


If the anonymous non-signing contributor at 152.163.101.13, who at 22:50, 4 January 2006 wrote the above, would kindly join up, that person and Dominick could then continue their discussion on their personal Talk pages, without clogging up this page. As things stand, Dominick would do best, I think, by not responding at all. Lima 05:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks to you Lima, there is an RfC this person can troll me on, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dominick. Put your comments there please. Dominick (TALK) 14:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

sacrament v. mystery

Someone wrote about this article that "holy mystery" is not in keeping with the Latin Rite. First, this article is about catholicism in general, not specifically about the Roman Catholic Church, and not about the Latin Rite of that Church. Second, "holy mysteries" and "sacred myseries" are indeed used to describe the sacraments by the Roman Church's "Catechism of the Catholic Church," and in the text of the Roman Rite Mass itself. Nrgdocadams 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Doc Adams's argument seems faulty. In Western theology, the word "mysteries" is much broader than "sacrament". The sacraments are only seven, the mysteries, in all senses, intellectual, historic, and maybe even ritual, are many. So, though I earlier left Doc Adams's editing untouched, his awakening of the question makes me realize that the more precise word "sacrament" should be used, not the ambiguous word "mystery". Even theologians of Eastern tradition understand precisely what is meant in English by "sacrament", and they know that, again in English, the meaning of "mystery" is dependent on the context and therefore vague. Lima 12:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding in Eastern Orthodoxy is that "mystery" is used to mean "sacrament", but our "mysteries" aren't limited to just the "main seven" of Roman Catholicism; I'm not sure if they would encompass everything that Lima referred to as "mysteries, in all senses" or not, but it is used very broadly, and includes the Divine Liturgy. Certainly it's a bit vague, but that's by design. If the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the word this way as well, shouldn't that be sufficiently authoritative? Wesley 17:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia believes in the principle of "least astonishment". In English, like it or not, the term that astonishes least is sacrament, not holy mystery. Sacrament should be the normal term here, with an observation that the Eastern Churches use the term holy mystery.

For the Eastern Churches, the "Divine Liturgy" (what Latin Catholics call the "Mass") is of course one of the seven "holy mysteries" (what Latin Catholics call the seven "sacraments"): it is the "holy mystery" or "sacrament" that is known also as the "Eucharist".

If I were writing, even about Western theology, in Greek, I would have to use the term holy mystery, since the Greek language has no other term than that to express the meaning of the Latin term sacramentum. ("Holy mystery" and "Divine Liturgy" are more specific than "mystery" and "liturgy".) The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 774 remarks that the Greek word μυστήριον has been translated into Latin by two terms: mysterium and sacramentum, and then explains that each of these Latin terms has taken on a more specific meaning. English has derived the two words mystery and sacrament from Latin, in neither case directly from Greek.

Lima 20:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, the article is about Catholicism in general, not merely the Western and/or Latin Rite Roman Catholic interpretation of it. And in English — even to the extent of the Wikipedia having a disambiguation link about it and several articles using the term in reference to these rites — the word "mystery" is used in the sense of these rites often enough to fail the test of astonishment, except for the exceedingly easily astonished. Moreover, adding the word mysteries, with the link, provides a fuller understanding, which is the point of an encyclopedia. In addition to all of that, in the Roman Novus Ordo Mass itself, the Penitential Rite is introduced with the words: "And now, to prepare ourselves to enter into these sacred mysteries, let us call to mind our sins." This is by no means a foreign concept.
Nrgdocadams 00:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams


Which causes least astonishment in English? Lima 05:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Anglican and Lutheran confirmation practice

Is it true, as stated for some time in this article, that "among Anglicans and Lutherans (confirmation) is administered immediately after baptism"and that the administration is "done ordinarily in ... Anglican, and Lutheran Churches" by a priest, not a bishop? I notice that the Anglican Book of Common Prayer has a section headed: A Catechism, that is to say, an Instruction to be Learned of Every Person before he be Brought to be Confirmed by the Bishop. This is followed by The Order of Confirmation, or Laying on of Hands upon those that are Baptized and come to Years of Discretion, which envisages only a bishop as minister. Each of these Book of Common Prayer texts seems to contradict both statements in the article. Lima 14:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

As it states in the article, Lima, the sacrament (i.e., sacramental rite) by which the Holy Spirit is given -- that is, the chrismation itself -- is conferred ordinarily by presbyters in both the Anglican and Lutheran Churches, and it is ordinarily done immediately after baptism. This has been the case for a long time. As is also stated in the article: "In the Lutheran and Anglican traditions, 'Confirmation' has come to be seen as a mature expression of faith, graced by the laying-on of a bishop's hands, and separated as a rite from the actual conferring of the chrismation" (emphasis added). This is made clearer in the newer revisions of the Book of Common Prayer around the Anglican Communion, as well as in Alternative Service Books, such as Common Worship in the Church of England. The Book of Common Prayer to which you refer is that of 1662 and, while by Act of Parliament, it remains the official standard of the Church of England, that is sort of akin to the Roman Missal of Gregory the Great being the official standard of the Roman Catholic Church (yet the Roman Catholic Church has revised this seminal Roman Missal many times over). Moreover, it is not the official standard of other member Churches of the worldwide Anglican Communion. As the scholarship of the Liturgical Movement uncovered the (mis-) evolution of Confirmation in the West, both Anglican and Lutehrans sought to place greater emphasis on the actual chrismation at Baptism, rather than associating that sacramental action with the bishop's "coming of age" blessing at Confirmation. If you look under the article for "Chrismation" in Wikipedia, I think you'll find the specific rites used for the chrismation, as opposed to the Confirmation, by Anglicans and Lutherans. The difficulty and confusion has arisen becasue of the Roman practice of delaying chrismation until "riper years" and of conflating it into the coming of age ritual known as "Confirmation."
Nrgdocadams 23:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

I accept Ngrdocadam's authority, though I would like another word from an Anglican, since I still cannot help wondering if it is just possible that there is confusion between the conferring of the second sacrament of Christian initiation, whatever you call it, and the anointing with chrism that Anglicans may perhaps practise in harmony with practice in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church: when a child or even, if for some special reason the celebration of confirmation is separated from baptism, an adult is baptized, the minister anoints the newly baptized person "with sacred chrism" on the crown of the head, after praying (I quote the official English text): "God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has freed you from sin, given you a new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, and welcomed you into his holy people. He now anoints you with the chrism of salvation. As Christ was anointed Priest, Prophet, and King, so may you live always as a member of his body, sharing everlasting life." This rite is omitted if confirmation is administered immediately after baptism. Lima 10:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Request for help on Forgiveness article

I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Catholicism heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Catholicism's view on forgiveness? Any help would be appreciated. --speet 04:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

REQUESTED MOVE

Catholicism → Catholicity – "Catholicity" is a more appropriate and accurate title for the ecclesiological issues that "Catholicism" currently addresses. — Hyphen5 14:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support. "Catholicity" is a more appropriate and accurate title for the ecclesiological issues "Catholicism" currently addresses. There are a plethora of articles reflecting the controversy over this subject. The -ism suffix strongly suggests that Catholicism is a set of beliefs and thus should refer to the (Roman) Catholic religion, not to the dispute over the term "catholic". (And, alas, this overwhelmingly represents the popular usage of the term. The -ism inherently tells people that this is a system of thought. That's why I think it is unnecessary and inappropriate to use this term to discuss the term "catholic".) Besides, I've never heard of anyone talk about the "catholicism" of the Church -- only its "catholicity"; so Catholicity seems much more accurate for a discussion about universality. This move would make our religion nomenclature more consistent (e.g., Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Lutheranism, etc.). Furthermore, this move will allow the Roman Catholic Church article to be moved here to Catholicism, which would be a good compromise to the unending debate over whether to call it the "Roman Catholic Church" or the "Catholic Church". For all these reasons, I think this article should be moved to Catholicity, and probably merged with Catholic along the way. Catholic could then be a disambiguation page. --Hyphen5 14:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose common usage. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Most Common Name rule means we should use Catholic, which means universal. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is scarcely any more about catholicity (i.e. universality) than about unity, sanctity, or apostolicity. What it treats of is Catholicism. Lima 14:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Current compromise is a good working system. While the first part of the move may be workable (Catholicism to Catholicity) the second part isn't. And Catholic Church already redirect to Roman Catholic Church so that isn't really a problem. Rmhermen 14:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - though it might be a different matter if some other article was vying for this space. My reading of the dictionary definitions is that Catholicity generally simply means "universality", generally in a secular sense, which is not what this article is about; whereas Catholicism relates specifically to a Church considering itself Catholic, but not necessarily one in communion with the Pope - as a quick glace at the front page of a Google search for the term will show, one of the most prominent uses of the term is in the name of the organisation Affirming Catholicism, an Anglican group - which is what this article is about. Especially if Roman Catholic Church is to move to Catholic Church, as currently proposed, the article discussing other uses of the term 'Catholic' needs to go somewhere, and I simply don't think that Catholicity is generally used in this sense. TSP 12:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
(Discussion between TSP and Hyphen5 has been moved down to the discussion section.)
  • Oppose, common usage and self usage by most Catholics trumps anything else in this instance.JohnnyBGood 19:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose As above; this term is not in common use and the proposed move would obfuscate the issue. And if online usage is any indication, instances of "Catholicism" outstrip those of "Catholicity" by almost 30 to 1. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "Catholicism" beats out "catholicty" in Google because "Catholicism" refers to the Catholic Church! You know, the one that the Pope is head of. Last time I checked, 94 of the top 100 Google hits for "Catholicism" refer to that Church of which the Pope is head. You are correct that "Catholicism" is unambiguous, but the article we have at Catholicism doesn't reflect that reality at all. It is an extended discussion that we already have elsewhere at Catholic and One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. --Hyphen5 12:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
None of your concerns with the relevant article(s) would be solved through the proposed move – which has so far garnered unanimous opposition – and would create added ones that detract from the topic matter. Edit the relevant article(s) to embrace varied perspectives and definitions, then. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course one of my concerns would be solved: "catholicity" is simply a more accurate term for what this article addresses. That's why I'd like to move this there. Catholicism would then be redirected to Catholic Church, per the Google test. --Hyphen5 20:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

common usage. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Common usage? "Catholicism" is never used in the sense of "universality", whereas "catholicity" always means that. Come on now. --Hyphen5 21:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
But this article isn't about universiality.... TSP 12:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed it is about various views on ecclesiological universality. To consider yourself "Catholic", you have to believe in "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" (or at least the "catholic" part, I suppose). "Catholic" in that sense means universal. The noun form of universal is universality, and the noun form of small-c catholic is catholicity. And they're synonyms. --Hyphen5 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Most Common Name rule means we should use Catholic, which means universal. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that a vote in favor of a merge with Catholic? I could go for that. --Hyphen5 23:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't Catholicism simply a noun form of the adjective Catholic? My reading of the Naming Conventions is that articles shouldn't normally have titles which are adjectives; so Catholic should simply be a redirect to Catholicism (at the moment, it is a separate article expressing the same concept rather less well). Admittedly, 'catholic' is also the adjective form of 'catholicity'; but I'm not convinced there is a valid encyclopedia article about catholicity. TSP 17:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
See my response above. I would not say that "Catholicism" and "catholicity" are synonyms. "Catholicism" is the noun form of big-c "Catholic" and "catholicity" is the noun form of small-c "catholic". --Hyphen5 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
And which one are Affirming Catholicism? Because they're using it to mean what this article takes it to mean, and they think it's 'Catholicism'; as do I, and I see most of the other editors present. By my reading, the dictionary definitions agree.
I didn't say the two were synonyms. I said that I didn't think there was a valid encyclopedia article on catholicity - that is "General application or acceptance; universality." This article isn't about that; it's about Catholicism (or possibly catholicism; Wikipedia doesn't distinguish; but, as I've shown, Catholicism-with-a-big-C is also used to refer to the Catholic Church in the abstract as well as the specific body in communion with the Pope). TSP 00:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is scarcely any more about catholicity (i.e. universality) than about unity, sanctity, or apostolicity. What it treats of is Catholicism. Lima 14:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Lima, are you kidding me? The only reason to have any of this under the title "Catholicism" is because it has something to do with the meaning of small-c "catholic". Small-c "catholic" means "universal". To talk about universality in a theological way is "catholicity", not "Catholicism". Catholicism is a specific system of beliefs -- notably that in which the Roman Pontiff believes. That's how the word "Catholicism" is commonly used, and it is not at all in sync with the content of this article. --Hyphen5 03:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Current compromise is a good working system. While the first part of the move may be workable (Catholicism to Catholicity) the second part isn't. And Catholic Church already redirect to Roman Catholic Church so that isn't really a problem. Rmhermen 14:35, 20 March 2006 (

Why do you say the move from Catholicism to Catholicty is workable, but then you vote against it? This isn't a vote on the second part, just the Catholicism to Catholicity move. --Hyphen5 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

TSP, about your vote: I offered a compromise whereby another article (i.e., Roman Catholic Church was vying for this space, and you even voted against that. So I don't understand why you've changed your mind suddenly.

Hmm? I don't think I've changed my mind on anything, have I? I didn't say that I greatly desired another article to vy for this space; but that there might be a bigger issue if one was, which currently one isn't. TSP 00:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
My point is that a day or two ago, there was exactly that situation and you still voted against it. And--at least my reading of your vote is that it suggests that you would have done otherwise, when in fact you did not. --Hyphen5 06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments below in the discussion section. But one last point: the naming conventions direct that we should "give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". As I have said, I think it's reasonable to believe that a majority of English speakers think "Catholic Church" when they hear the word "Catholicism". That is because the -ism suffix suggests that it refers to a system of beliefs, a religion. Furthermore, the common names convention specifies: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" To the majority of people (and Google hits), Catholicism refers to that Church of which the Pope is head. I am open to disambiguation via a page or link at the top. --Hyphen5 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are a few things going on here. For all the articles - Catholic Church, Catholicism, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Catholic - there are two separate possible meanings; the general idea of the Catholic Church (not always small-c - see Affirming Catholicicm's pages); and the principal organisation that explicitly claims to be the outworking of that, the church headed by the Pope.
I support the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church article; I have never raised an objection to that. But I cringe at this idea of yours that the existence of a single group, "Affirming Catholicism", makes the term "Catholicism" ambiguous. In fact, of the first 100 Google results on the term "Catholicism", only four do not refer to that Church of which the Pope is head. Three of them are for the same site (Affirming Catholicism), and one is for a similar Anglo-Catholic blog. The other 96 results, as best as I can tell, refer to that Church of which the Pope is head. (There is one hit from the Feeneyites, but they, too, recognize the Pope as head of the Catholic Church, even though they are condemned by it.) So, according to the google test, the "Catholicism" term unambiguously refers to the Church of which the Pope is head. In my tedious search I also found several sources that are of interest here and over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church. I found two British media sources that refer to the unqualified "Catholic Church" and "Catholics": BBC and The Tablet. This seems contradictory to assertions that everybody in Britain says "Roman Catholic". I also found a tract by Martin Luther entitled, Against Catholicism. Luther seems to have understood what the word "Catholicism" means. But these issues are neither here nor there. --Hyphen5 06:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, over on Roman Catholic Church, that people looking for Catholic Church are likely to be looking for the church headed by the Pope; so that article should probably be there. However, there is still that other concept, which is an important one and needs to be covered; and the articles on that concept need a place to live. At the moment it lives here. If the Church headed by the Pope is at Catholic Church, it seems fine for Catholicism to concern the more general idea.
Given that, according to the Google Test, Catholicism unambiguously refers to the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church, it seems to me that it should redirect or disambig. That is why I have proposed moving it to Catholicity. And I have not even disputed the Catholic article and the legitimacy of its content. So if I had my druthers, people could wax on about catholicity, small-c catholic, and ecclesiological universality at three different articles: Catholicity, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and Catholic (although I would probably use a disambiguation page, or at least a disambig link, at the Catholic article). This seems awfully generous to me: three articles on one subject. --Hyphen5 06:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
My main objection to this move, though, is that that simply isn't what I believe 'Catholicity' to mean. If someone said "I want to discuss the catholicity of this organisation", I wouldn't imagine they were talking about the extent to which it was aligned with the Pope; nor the extent to which it was part of the abstractly-conceived catholic church. I'd think they were talking about the extent to which it accommodates a wide range of ideas and people. That very simply isn't what this article is about. I don't think that Affirming Catholicism would ever have been called Affirming Catholicity, even though the thing it is affirming is the Catholic (universal) Church, not the church in communion with the Pope.
Okay, but I can't tell you how many times I've heard priests, seminarians, and theologians talk about the "catholicity of the Church". That's an important feature of the Church of Christ: that it is the universal Church (both temporally and spatially), not a state church or a tribal religion or a mere sect or some passing fad. You may not have heard it used this way, but I have, and I suspect others have as well. I am so confident about this that I may set up a redirect to Catholic (from Catholicity) even if this proposal fails. Although maybe that violates the rules about redirecting an adjective to a noun and vice-versa? --Hyphen5 06:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
On the last point, you're applying that standard backwards, I think. What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine - that's probably 'Catholic Church' or just 'Catholic' (Catholic, as an adjective, should redirect to a noun - which one is a separate debate); so that's where the article about the church in communion with the Pope should be. That standard is intended to determine which of two competing locations an article should be at, as with Gasoline v. Petrol. But that doesn't mean that EVERY word in that area has to be about the biggest body that has any claim to that term, to the utter exclusion, or moving to extremely obscure locations, of every other possible meaning. It's fine that Nightclubbing is about a song, even though people might expect to find out about Nightclubs there; because the Nightclub article is at its most logical place, leaving room for the Nightclubbing article at that location; with redirects between the two if people find that useful. TSP 00:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a good point. I'll concede this. Like I said, I would probably redirect Catholicism and Roman Catholicism to Catholic Church, but that's about it. For the rest of them, they can be left alone or consolidated. In any event, I hope we do have a web of disambiguation links among all these contested pages once this controversy is resolved or, at least, before the Apocalypse, which very well may happen first at this rate. --Hyphen5 06:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Speedy deletion

My objection is only provisional. I do not understand what it is about. If no one else objects in a reasonable time, please consider this objection withdrawn. Lima 18:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explained. User:MrMister moved the page to User talk:Catholicism (an invalid location, as there is no Wikipedia user called 'Catholicism'), then copied and pasted the content back. The result of this was that the content was identical; but the entire edit history was lost (which I think violates the GFDL, which requires that we preserve a record of who made which contribution). Unfortunately, the additional edit (moving the content back) means that this page now has a 'History'; so the Move function can't be used to move the page (with its history) back again. An admin needs to delete this copy of the page so the old one, with the edit history, can be moved back here. TSP 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I have, of course, no objection to the speedy deletion. I am sorry I was not able to revisit this page before now. Lima 04:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I was also a bit surprised when the template for requesting that a page be moved back turned out to be a speedy deletion request; but apparently that's how it's done. TSP 11:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholicity/Archive_4&oldid=1089768823"