Revision as of 18:57, 14 July 2014 edit207.157.121.52 (talk) Undid revision 616946451 by Zfish118 administrative review completed. restored valid content← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:10, 8 January 2025 edit undoEXANXC (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,273 edits a correction to my reply |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header |noarchive=yes |search=no}} |
|
{{British English|date=March 2013}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles}} |
|
{{Round in circles}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=Top|theology-work-group=yes|theology-importance=Top|evangelical-christianity=yes|evangelical christianity-importance=mid|anglicanism=yes|anglicanism-importance=mid|calvinism=yes|calvinism-importance=mid|lutheranism=yes|lutheranism-importance=mid|history=yes|history-importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top |Interfaith=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject History|importance=Top }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Rome|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ab|style=long}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=7 October 2007 |
|
|action1date=7 October 2007 |
Line 91: |
Line 103: |
|
|action15result=reviewed |
|
|action15result=reviewed |
|
|action15oldid=431644193 |
|
|action15oldid=431644193 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action16=PR |
|
|
|action16date=21:20, 16 March 2015 |
|
|
|action16link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Catholic Church/archive2 |
|
|
|action16result=not reviewed |
|
|
|action16oldid= |
|
|
|
|
|
|action17=GAN |
|
|
|action17date=18:38, 4 April 2015 |
|
|
|action17link=Talk:Catholic Church/GA2 |
|
|
|action17result=listed |
|
|
|action17oldid=654972060 |
|
|
|
|
|
|otddate=27 March 2007 |
|
|
|otdoldid=118238807 |
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=philrelig |
|
|topic=philrelig |
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|
|
|action18 = GAR |
|
|
|action18date = 00:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|action18link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Catholic Church/1 |
|
|
|action18result = kept |
|
|
|action18oldid = 1210299667 |
|
|
|currentstatus = GA |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Philosophy|class=B}} |
|
|
|
| title1= Roman Catholic Church |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
| title2= Catholic Church |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=b|importance=Top|core-topics-work-group=yes|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=Top}} |
|
|
|
| collapse = false |
|
{{WikiProject Religion |class=b |importance=Top }} |
|
|
|
| list = |
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|WPCD=yes|class=B|category=Philrelig}}}} |
|
|
|
* ], Roman Catholic Church → Catholic Church, '''Not moved''', 21 March 2006, ] |
|
{{On this day |date1=2007-03-27|oldid1=118238807 }} |
|
|
|
** ], Roman Catholic Church → Catholic Church, '''Moved''', 15 June 2009, ] |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
* RM, Catholic Church → Roman Catholic Church, '''Not moved''', 20 August 2009, ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Oxford English|date=March 2023}} |
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|1={{Copied|from=Catholic Church|from_oldid=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_Church&oldid=389311871 |to=Catholic views on Mary |diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_views_on_Mary&oldid=389451226}} |
|
|
{{Copied |from=Canonization|from_oldid=841807635 |to=Catholic Church|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_Church&type=revision&diff=842159125&oldid=842097030}} |
|
|
{{Copied |from=Saints|from_oldid=841312648|to=Catholic Church|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_Church&type=revision&diff=842159125&oldid=842097030}} |
|
|
{{section size}} |
|
|
}}{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 300K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 53 |
|
|counter = 56 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|algo = old(15d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Catholic Church/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Catholic Church/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=15 |units=days }} |
|
{{Archive box |auto=short |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=30 |units=days |banner=yes}} |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools}} |
|
|
{{Copied |from=Catholic Church|from_oldid=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_Church&oldid=389311871 |to=Catholic views on Mary |diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_views_on_Mary&oldid=389451226}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Social teaching == |
|
|
|
|
|
The enumeration of these seemed too much for the main article: |
|
|
|
|
|
The Church enumerates "corporal works of mercy" and "spiritual works of mercy" as follows:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10198d.htm |title=CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy |publisher=Newadvent.org |date=1 October 1911 |accessdate=2012-08-17}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
{| |
|
|
|- |
|
|
!] |
|
|
!] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 1. To feed the hungry. |
|
|
| 1. To instruct the ignorant. |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 2. To give drink to the thirsty. |
|
|
| 2. To counsel the doubtful |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 3. To clothe the naked. |
|
|
| 3. To admonish sinners. |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 4. To harbour the harbourless (shelter the homeless). |
|
|
| 4. To bear wrongs patiently. |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 5. To visit the sick. |
|
|
| 5. To forgive offences willingly. |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 6. To ransom the captive. |
|
|
| 6. To comfort the afflicted. |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 7. To bury the dead. |
|
|
| 7. To pray for both the living and the dead. |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Talk page references == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Schreck == |
|
|
|
|
|
I presume that the unspecified book by Schreck repeatedly cited in the article is Alan Schreck's ''Essential Catholic Catechism'', which is not freely available. I wonder how accurate are the statements attributed to it. One in particular is the statement that the New Testament was never compiled before the ] was written. The article about that manuscript says that, as it now exists, it lacks 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation; that it may never have contained Revelation, and that it probably contained New Testament apocrypha. Did Schreck write what the article attributes to him? It is to be hoped that he did, for otherwise doubt is cast on the accuracy of the other statements attributed to him. ] (]) 16:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:When I read this, I presumed the text meant to convey that the Codex Vaticanus was the oldest extant compilation, not necessary the first. It was poorly written, but when I revised it, I tried to leave it semantically equivalent to not break the attribution. --] (] 21:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
===Citation=== |
|
|
{| |
|
|
Schreck, Alan (1999). ''The Essential Catholic Catechism.'' Servant Publications. ISBN 1-56955-128-6. |
|
|
*First added to the bibliography, and as a footnote source on 13 March 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_Church&diff=198105376&oldid=197894523). |
|
|
*Deleted from bibliography on 31 January 2012 (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_Church&diff=474253029&oldid=474189952) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
===Edit=== |
|
|
I have thought it best to replace the material on the Catholic canon of Scripture attributed to Schreck with what I think is clearer and surer material. Schreck seems to have attached disproportionate importance to that one manuscript, whether in the nonsense version attributed to him in this article ("the New Testament writings first found" in that manuscript), which says the writings, not just the list of them, were found nowhere until then, or in the ''transcription'' of his words given, since , in the misnamed article "]" ("The present list of New Testament writings was first ''founded'' in the Codex Vaticanus from Rome around A.D. 340 ..."). The article is misnamed, because it is about only one of the many circular letters that Athanasius (this was his 39th!) and other Bishops of Alexandria sent annually to inform of the date on which Easter was to be celebrated that year. Surely something less schrecklich than Schreck can be found. ] (]) 14:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I concur. --] (] 23:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== /* Contemporary issues#Social teachings */ == |
|
|
|
|
|
The social teaching's segment seemed to hover out of place as its own section, and is relevant to several points in the Contemporary Issue section. I am still not certain if it is a good fit there, so a revert would not be taken personally. --] (] 07:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum. Please select a different website if you would like to discus this topic. |
|
|
== Is Church Catholic? == |
|
|
I'm sorry to come back but i found the view of Saint Ambrose of Optina and i'd like to share it: http://classicalchristianity.com/2014/06/05/st-ambrose-of-optina-on-the-roman-catholic-church/ --] (]) 09:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Faith (rather than reason) == |
|
|
|
|
|
Believing something by faith does not exclude reason and we are exhored not to abandon that very reason by the Catholic Church. The assertion is most definitely not in any cited source, is not in any accurate source, and has no place in the lede section. ] (]) 04:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==GA Reassessment== |
|
:It's not clear to me what wording is concerning you. The word "reason" does not exist in the lead. No comparison of faith and reason is made. I cannot see any assertion that faith excludes reason. Personally, I think it does, but it's not necessary to say so in the articles on every religion, but that's a different discussion, so there's no need to say it in this article. ] (]) 04:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Catholic Church/1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Section on Joseph == |
|
::See the addition made by which was the second time the wording was inserted in the lede. since then. ] (]) 04:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A section on Joseph was recently added under the Virgin Mary section. I think this is ]. He is clearly not one of the most important saints. Doctrine about him seems like an afterthought (and not dogmatic). I would revert myself but I cann't yet. ] (]) 11:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Ah, that explains it! Perhaps you should be more careful coming here and complaining about something that ISN'T in the article, without explaining the situation a bit better. Oh well, I won't fight your removal of the comment, but as I say, surely faith and reason are somewhat different things. On some levels they are, virtually by definition, mutually exclusive. ] (]) 04:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Penance == |
|
::::If you're really interested in the feelings of the Church in this matter, I'd suggest reading the theological greats, starting with . None of them would agree that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. ] (]) 05:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First I would say that it should list its multiple common names, reconciliation and confession which are more common then penance. Second the section states "Serious sins (mortal sins) should be confessed at least once a year and always before receiving Holy Communion, while confession of venial sins also is recommended." The Catholic Church requires catholics to go to confession at least once a year, no matter if the person is in a state of mortal sin or not. ] (]) 16:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::What's the point of referring me to the thoughts of a man of absolute faith on how rational faith is? You need to also look at the thoughts of men (and women) of reason who reject faith entirely. (Why, oh why, do religious people come here trying to convince us all that their faith is rational? Please find a more appropriate forum. And, before any of the haters start attacking me here, please note that at no stage have I condemned faith.) ] (]) 05:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:If one would like to know additional names for a thing, they can generally go to the article for that thing, where they will be listed. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 16:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::This conversation has veered from the subject matter and become far too personal, so I shall be exiting here. ] (]) 05:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2024 == |
|
:::::::Having and expressing a view that is different from yours is not a personal matter in any way at all. ] (]) 05:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
The topic is that the church does not teach faith and reason to be mutually exclusive, which was misrepresented in the article. The writings of Saint Thomas are a source for the ''factual claim'' that the church teaches their compatibility, not necessarily the accuracy of the church's teaching. Discussing or defending personal beliefs or interpretations is inappropriate for the talk page. --] (] 23:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Catholic Church|answered=yes}} |
|
John Paul II's Encyclical Fides et Ratio is an excellent resource if someone is interested in this topic. HiLo, "religious" people are <!--typo correction, missing not?-->not<!--end typo correction--> here to convince you or anyone else of anything. Should an editor be here it is because they are interested in making the article here. I wonder if it would be appropriate to ask why do you always try to convince us that we are not rational in our beliefs? The shoes easily fits the other foot also. --<sup>]</sup>] 06:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The section about the calling of the first Crusade needs clarification. It, like every other crusade, was initialized as a pilgrimage, as shown in the initializing speech Urban II gave: <https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/urban2a.asp>. This was not a formal military group, and it lacked leading tacticians or generals because it was not intended as an invasion force. It operated as such when it got to the area around Jerusalem, but that was due to the decision of the group, not the official decree that began the pilgrimage. ] (]) 03:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> This is original research on your part, and it's clearly missing a lot of context. Please take a look at ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 05:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC: Establishing an independent ] article == |
|
:What? That makes little sense. ] (]) 08:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently, ] redirects here. The reason was that ] was moved to ] then moved again to ] several years ago in ] and ]. The reason was that the original article did not talk about Catholicism, but instead about the term Catholicity. It is time to finally finish the job. |
|
== Canon (Doctrine section) == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that ] deserves its own actual article as a major branch of ] and the primary topic of ], similar to its peers ] and ], and minor branches of ] such as ]. A lot of the content of this article and its related articles would be moved over there, and this article should be more like the ] and the ]. ] (]) 08:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Perhaps a bit more clarity and context regarding the acceptance of the New Testament canon east and west is needed. I added a footnote explaining Luther's dispute, but I am uncertain about the only some "place them at three different status levels". There is no discussion as to what these levels are or why it there is any dispute. --] (] 22:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Help me here. You're thinking of a demonominational article broader about Catholicism, that is distinctly broader the ambit of communion with the Pope? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 08:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Sex abuse crisis in lead section == |
|
|
|
::If I read ] correctly, ] would be "as interpreted authoritatively by the ] of the ]", consistent with the Mediation Committee decision in 2009. ] (]) 09:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Well, the clear counterargument here would seem to be, to a degree unmatched in each comparable example, Catholicism as a social, cultural, and confessional reality is coextensive with the particular institution and authority of the church. Clearly, like any thing that includes billions of people, that doesn't mean it's a monolith, but I do not really see how a split along the pattern of the example above is even workable. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Catholicism and Catholic Church are essentially the same thing, I'm confused as to how you're proposing to split it. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 14:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::It is difficult for me to understand what the Catholics believe and practice, because a lot of the attention in the current article is given to the Church itself. On the other hand, it is very easy to read what the beliefs and practices of ] are. I had to go to Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on Roman Catholicism to be able to much more easily read how Catholicism and Protestantism compare, and I had to guess many readers throughout the past 20 years share my experience. I know that Misplaced Pages has a page on ], but it is much more involved and scholarly than a summary style article. ] (]) 14:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If you find the subject very difficult to grasp, I question why you are are proposing this massive restructuring with the confidence that it will clarify matters. It seems like you would not know one way or the other. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 14:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I did know, by looking at Encyclopedia Britannica, which is unfortunate because Misplaced Pages has a much larger readership. I am proposing this restructuring for the benefit of other readers. ] (]) 15:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I am skeptical presently, but I think I would be interested in what discussion comes of this. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 15:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''': While this proposal has appeared a couple times before, I have a hard time seeing the utility in creating a "Catholicism" article when we could instead discuss ways to improve ]. ~ ] (]) 16:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:There was no such proposal when I looked into ] and ] which contains all the discussion of this article after in 2017, Catholicism article was renamed to Catholicity and there was no more Catholicism article. The theology articles are just different in scope, ] and ] are narrower and deeper in scope to ] and ]. ] (]) 16:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::There is no singular "Protestant Church", so that comparison is a bit imprecise. If anything, I'm more convinced that separating ] from ] is a difference without distinction. ~ ] (]) 16:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::If Eastern Orthodoxy is proposed at AfD, the result would be snow keep. ] (]) 18:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::No one is proposing an AfD, but perhaps a merge is sound, especially given Remsense's comments below. ~ ] (]) 19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''': -I agree with Pbritti. ] (]) 16:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''': I support this. Catholicism (its theology, tradition, etc) exists outside the roman catholic church as well (see independent catholicism, sedevacantism and old catholicism, for example). ] (]) |
|
|
*:What benefit would be obtained by a new article, as those subjects already have articles covering them? The scope of those subjects is explicitly that they are not part of the ], which is consistent with equating Catholicism with the Catholic Church. ~ ] (]) 18:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:We have an article on Protestantism as a branch and theology, which is separate from individual protestant churches, and we have an article on Eastern orthodoxy as a branch and theology, separate from the eastern orthodox churches, why don't we do the same for catholicism as a branch and theology, have a catholicism article separate from the catholic churches (Roman Catholic, Old catholic, independent catholic, etc)? It just seems logical, you know. The benefit would be consistency and an article on Catholic beliefs, theology, traditions, etc that would summarize everything nicely. ] (]) 20:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::I mean, given what has been touched on so far I feel the difference is pretty clear: we're running into issues when there is one identifiable institution that underlies and is more or less coextensive with the denomination in question. These aren't monoliths, but we're not writing comparative monographs, but brief articles. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 20:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Question'''{{snd}}what I would want is a rough outline at the very least. As it stands, I am rather unimpressed by the distinction in scope that exists between ] and ]. It simply is not clear to me what should go in one article or the other, and this needs to be discerned before we make any premeditated changes here. Let's break the bodies down: |
|
I recently reverted a series of edits from the article's lead section that misrepresented the sexual abuse scandal. Firstly, every organization has a small percentage of members with unfortunate pedophilic tendencies; this alone is not notable. What is notable about the church's scandal is that it grossly mishandled a significant number of abuse incidents and accusations. The lead should accurately reflect this. There used to be a neutrally phrased reference to the scandal in the lead developed through consensus. This should be restored. I am editing on my phone and cannot do this right now. --] (] 17:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
** ] is 15k words{{snd}}divided into roughly equal thirds of "history", "institution", and "theology/religious life". |
|
:Additionally, the edits inappropriately used statistics presumably for clergy as a whole, and misrepresented them as applying to the more limited subset of clergy within the hierarchy, which is not necessarily the case. --] (] 22:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
** ] is 6.5k words{{snd}}with three-quarters "theology/religious life", and one-quarter "institution". |
|
|
:To make the confusion explicit, that roughly works out to a "theology/religious life" suprasection given 5k words in each article, so one is effectively not summarizing the other. Much of the content seems to be of roughly equivalent merit if it appears in the overlapping scope of each articles. It just feels an immensely awkward line if we wanted to cut it more cleanly—either we get a totally bloated or over-summarized omnibus article if we do it wrong (we could potentially do it right by keeping this article in mind, maybe), or we could get two incomplete, broken articles. I think it's fair to say in their present state these articles aren't really separate in scope—one is contained within the other. |
|
|
:Actually, what I think could work here is treat ] seriously, i.e. mercilessly summaryslash down the history chunk of ], which then maybe has room to balance the other material that's presently awkwardly copied or elaborated upon slightly in ]. The point I'm making here, is this does not seem like the best model for basing a premeditated refactoring like this on. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 19:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::To start with, the theology, liturgy, traditions, sacraments sections of Eastern Orthodoxy are already much more expansive than their much smaller counterparts in Eastern Orthodox Church. If there is a Catholicism article, we would see those sections expanded there and reduced here, and we also have room for minority views such as traditionalist Catholicism, and expand upon how Catholicism affected the rest of the world such as our calendar and our holidays. ] (]) 23:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* In principle this is a solid proposal, my hesitation is similar to Remsense's in that I'm not really sure what such a page would look like... Perhaps an alternative could be to make Catholicism a disambiguation page, that would allow for broader coverage while preventing us from just duplicating a lot of existing text in other articles. ] (]) 20:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:] already exists for this purpose. The redirect ] has a daily viewership about 2/3 larger than ] and is linked on over 4,900 articles (and over 6,500 pages), almost universally in reference to the ]. ~ ] (]) 22:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::That doesn't seem to address that we're favoring one tradition at the expense of a number of others... Might does not make right as they say. ] (]) 22:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::The fact that the disambiguation page has ''that'' many traffic means people are looking for the actual Catholicism article and did not find any, it is natural that people say they understand Catholic Church has authority over Catholicism but at the same time Catholicism is still a religion used regularly in national censuses that usually has its own page. ] (]) 23:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::The ''disambiguation'' page gets ~30 views a day. As to {{tq|Might does not make right as they say}}, that's a nice sentiment but not in keeping with Misplaced Pages's policies. One could make the same arguments as HEB to justify reassigning ] as a disambiguation. Indeed, proportionally, there are more people resident in countries that have some permutation of "United States" in them that are not the USA than self-described Catholics who are not part of the Catholic Church. ~ ] (]) 01:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::We have a well documented pro-USA bias on wiki... Pointing to that to excuse another bias doesn't make sense. I would also note that any members of Catholic denominations (Roman or otherwise) should be disclosing a COI when participating in this discussion given the clear bias issue. ] (]) 16:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::Not bias, but a reflection of policy. This is a typical case of ], indicated clearly but how the term is used in reliable sources and across the project. ~ ] (]) 17:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::It is not clear that the Roman Catholic Church would be that primary topic, if we want to look at what other wikis do they generally seem to have an article at catholiscism, for example Simple. ] (]) 20:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::All of these are primarily–if not exclusively–devoted to the religion of the Catholic Church. Seems pretty clear cut. Best, ~ ] (]) 21:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::::That seems like an exaggeration to me, but if that is how you see it I guess that is how you see it. ] (]) 21:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' What with ] (not I think mentioned yet) and ], I can't really see what a new article would contain. Admittedly these may be relatively hard to find, but a little tweaking should sort that out. ] (]) 03:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:These two are talking about concepts of universality, not a branch of Christianity. ] (]) 06:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Er, no! Have you actually read the lower parts of ]? ] (]) 23:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Comment''' What are the high quality sources that the proposed article would be based on, and how do they define "Catholicism" as a phenomenon/term apart from the Catholic Church? ] (]) 21:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, I don't see the need for the article, but sources are in appalling abundance - see ] and ]. I don't think the problem is this. ] (]) 23:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose -''' per Pbritti. ] (]) 10:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' I get what you mean, the Roman Catholic Church isn’t the only Church that sees itself as Catholic, but I think this is already covered in Christianity ] (]) 12:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose.''' If this is intended to be a dedicated superarticle of ] and ], I don't think there's a need for that as it could be better covered by improving ], which doesn't seem to currently discuss this distinction. If this is about distinguishing between the beliefs of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church as an institution, there are already articles such as ], which could use some improvement. ] (<sup>]</sup>⁄<sub>]</sub>) 04:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Oppose''' The Oxford Dictionary defines "Catholicism" as "'''''the beliefs and principles of the Christian Church led by the pope"''''', specifically referring to the Roman Catholic Church. Including other groups like Independent Catholics under this term makes little sense, as "Catholicism" inherently refers to those in communion with the pope. |
|
I have twice commented here, and twice Zfish118 has deleted my comment without explanation, discussion or an Edit summary. That is bad faith editing. ] (]) 18:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] (]) 06:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
I also posted on this user's Talk page. He has deleted my comment there without response or Edit smmary. Clearly this editor does not actually want discussion. ] (]) 18:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*I'll restore your comment, below--but you should really consider striking the personal accusation. {{U|Zfish118}}, do not remove valid talk posts again. ] (]) 18:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::What's this "''every organization has a small percentage of members with unfortunate pedophilic tendencies''"? First, that's patently wrong, and secondly, the issue with the Catholic Church is that it hid and protected the perpetrators for decades. To almost everyone outside the church today, and to many within, the sexual abuse issue is currently the most notable one about the church. You sound as bad as the apologists within the church who have actually created much of this problem. Maybe you are one. ] (]) 08:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
The following discussion 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.
Several uncited sections, including almost the entire first section of the History section. History focuses disproportionately on 20th and 21st century. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
A section on Joseph was recently added under the Virgin Mary section. I think this is wp:undue. He is clearly not one of the most important saints. Doctrine about him seems like an afterthought (and not dogmatic). I would revert myself but I cann't yet. Rolluik (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
First I would say that it should list its multiple common names, reconciliation and confession which are more common then penance. Second the section states "Serious sins (mortal sins) should be confessed at least once a year and always before receiving Holy Communion, while confession of venial sins also is recommended." The Catholic Church requires catholics to go to confession at least once a year, no matter if the person is in a state of mortal sin or not. 107.77.194.157 (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
The section about the calling of the first Crusade needs clarification. It, like every other crusade, was initialized as a pilgrimage, as shown in the initializing speech Urban II gave: <https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/urban2a.asp>. This was not a formal military group, and it lacked leading tacticians or generals because it was not intended as an invasion force. It operated as such when it got to the area around Jerusalem, but that was due to the decision of the group, not the official decree that began the pilgrimage. 135.134.66.100 (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)