Talk:Eastern Catholic Churches/Archive 3

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

% comment

The statement that refers to the number of Eastern Christians that are Eastern Rite Catholics seems very out of place, POV and insulting. Maybe you think that I am being too thin skinned here but there has to be a better way of putting it. The statement only holds true if you count all the different protestants who live in the East as Eastern Christians. If this were not bad enough, it also seems as if your numbers are based on Latin Rite Catholics who live in the East as well, which seem wrong; using Catholic numbers to make a seemingly derogatory statement against Eastern Catholics. On top of that, we must consider the huge population of Russia, and the fact that all Russians are said to belong to the Church of Russia, even if they are not baptized and never go to Liturgy!

What would be a much fairer way to handle this, besides just not making the insulting statement AT ALL, would be to separate it out by rite or location or even by local church. It certainly is true that Byzantine Catholics are vastly out numbered by Byzantine non Catholics. It is also true that Coptic as well as Ethiopian Catholics are aswell vastly outnumbered. The same could be said for Armenian Catholics but then our definition of what an Armenian Catholic is must be clarified. Outside of the country of Armenia, there are more Armenian Catholics then Armenian Rite non Catholics. So it depends on how you want to define your groups. If we refer to Syrian Rite Catholics, we all have to admit that they outnumber the Syrian Rite non Catholics. If we speak of Byzantine Rite in the Middle East but not in Europe, Catholics again are in the majority. If we talk about Byzantine Rite in Italy, again, the Catholics are the majority. Now, it is true that there are more Non Catholic Christians in India then Catholic Christians, and that is without counting the protestants who most Indian Christians do not count as Christians. However, just one of the Catholic Catholic Churches in Idia is larger then any other when compared church to church.

These kind of remarks, stating that ONLY 10% of Easter Christians are Catholic, is the kind of double standard of discrimination that is always heeped on Catholics. You want to make Eastern Catholics seem like the small, weak and out of place group. Considering that most of this number is hugely affected by the population of Russia and the trumped up number of Church enrollment there, I really feel like the statement needs to be said a different way or excluded from the article all together. This kind of statement is only really used, not for informational purposes but to try to discredit the validity of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

On this last point we could also point out a number of different things. In the cases of the Ukrainian Catholics Church, Melkite Catholic Church, Syrian Catholic Church, Maronite Catholic Church, Syro-Malabar Catholic Churc, Chaldean Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic ChurchIt, Italo-Greek Catholic Church, Hungarian Greek Catholic Church was the Church leadership of these churches that established communion with the Catholic Church and thus these Churches are the true legitimate continuation of the original deposit of faith in the area for these churches. The other Churches in the area that do not have communion with the Catholic Church but have communion with other churches represent a schism from the original Church. This status could also be said to exist in several other of the Catholic Churches but not all of course. In some cases the information is very hazy as to exactly how certain elections came about but the Belerusian Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church are certainly in the grey area. Now it is true that the Coptic Catholic, Byzantine Greek Catholic, Ethiopian Catholic, and Russian Catholic Churches represent certain bishops, priest and lay faithful that went into schism with their local Church leadership in order to establish communion with Rome. I find it interesting that in all of the articles about the churches listed on this site, great pains were made to point out that they are just in schism with the original Church leadership but no mention is made of the cases where the original church leadership joined into communion with Rome and the mirror Churches of `orthodoxy` are the ones in schism, leaving the church in protest of the rightful decision of the true church leadership. I suspect a sutle conspiracy is involved in this.

I see a lot non factual Anti-East, anti-Catholic information on this site and I am not the only one to complain about it. I understand that writers get things wrong and that this site is limited to the knowledge of its apperantly amatuer, non professional staff but still, if you did not know that this was an issue before, please take this into consideration now and make some changes to be fair and respectful to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Modern Reforms

I think that a section on the Vatican II and post-Vatican II reforms as applied to the Eastern Catholic Churches would be quite useful. We are actually living in very heady times. In order to avoid unseemly fights, I'm starting a sandbox for the page and invite the community that visits here to stop by and contribute. TMLutas 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Majoreditor 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't seem to be getting much contribution over there. What's a reasonable time to leave this stuff in the sandbox before moving it to the article if there's no correcting edits? TMLutas 18:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I made some comments. Sorry that I am too sluggish today to do any more. Majoreditor 00:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that 11/1 would be a reasonable day to take this out of the sandbox. TMLutas 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I just moved it out of the sandbox, sorry for the delay TMLutas (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Uniates

This term redirects here but is not found in the article. Can this be rectified, either by expansion or by stubbing? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the redirect to point to the section of this article that does speak of the term "Uniate". Lima (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Defunct Easten Catholic Churches

What's about Slavonic Eastern Catholic Church or Catholic Church of Eastern Slavonic rite (pol. Kośćioł Katolicki obrzędku wschodniosłowianskiego. ukr. Католицька церква східнословянського обряду), so called Neouniates? In Kostomloty one parish is exists and today.Anyway, we need a chapter about defunct churches (Byzantine Catholic CHurch of Constantinople, Grek Catholic church of Cyprus (in Kingdom of Cyprus)etc). Another question: Armenian Catholic Church in Eastern Europe (under archbishop of Leopolis) is part of common Armenian Catholic Church or separate church of Armenian rite like there are many churches of Byzantine rite. And where are offical names of these churches used by Vatican? For example, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is called Catholic Church of Byzantine-Ukrainian rite (Ecclesia Catholica Ritu Byzantino-Ukrainensis)/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.86.230.114 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As for my understanding all of the Armenian Rite in the Catholic Church are part of the Armenian Catholic Church, although in Europe they are often cared for by priest of another Rite (Byzantine or Latin) depending on which jurisdiction they live in. Members of the Armenian Apostolic Church or either see that convert to Catholicism are usually encouraged to join the Armenian Catholic Church but there is no provision requiring this.
Official names for different Churches will depend on the name for that Church as adopted for a specific language. In English the official name for the Ukranian Church is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. In French this name is different and in Latin it is different. They aren't that much different but the "official" ness of it depends on if a name is adopted and used in a specific language. For instance, Greek Orthodox who opperate churches in Syria usually call themselves the "Roman Orthodox Church". This would of course sound very odd in English and especially odd in Latin and any Western European language.
As to defunct Eastern Catholic Churches, I can imagine that this would be a very heated question that would reveal someone's theological bend. As some Eastern Catholic Churches have come into and then out of communion again some within the Catholic church might consider them defunct Catholic Churches. St. Aquinas even taught that Churches in schism even while retaining valid orders and sacrements did not recieve the graces that went along with them because of the sin of schism. I understant what you mean to ask, in that have there been Eastern Catholic Churches that have died out, but even this is not really able to be answered as if there were any, it would have been a very long time ago before the idea that we have today of the Latin and Byzantine Rites being completely separate developed. It has happened in the past that certain Eastern Catholic Churches went without priest or bishops for some time but the faithful usually remained and eventually this problem of clergy was resolved. Some now say that many Catholics in Russia are now without priest and are barred from going to the Church of Russia for sacrements by the Russian authorities so they gather to pray the psalms. Even now within each church outside of communion with Rome there is at least some in the minority who are Pro-reunion, often called the papist party.
anyway I hope that helps you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.47.72 (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Syro-Malabar Catholic Church

The anonymous editor at IP 117.196.129.245 claims that the date of union or foundation of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is 1663, the date of the ordination of Bishop Chandy. The Church itself disagrees, claiming to have maintained its identity since the first century (see About Syro-Malabar Church) and that not all of the Thomas Christians participated in the break from Rome by "most" of them in 1653 (The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church). (See also History of the Syro-Malabar Church.) Stephen Neill's A History of Christianity in India (Cambridge University Press, 2004 ISBN 0521548853, 9780521548854), which recounts on p. 325 the episcopal ordination of Bishop Chandy, certainly does not present it as an act of union of a formerly separated Church with that of Rome nor as the foundation of a new Church (since Chandy was consecrated to carry on the work of Bishop Sebastiani, who was being expelled by the new Dutch masters of Cochin). I have therefore put "date disputed" as an indication of the date of union or foundation of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. This neither affirms nor denies the anonymous editor's point of view, and only makes a neutral statement on the question. Lima (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible workgroup

There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with the Eastern Catholic Churches, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Emendations

I have removed the epithet 'Greek' from these names: Albanian Greek Catholic Church, Belarusian Greek Catholic Church, Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church, Hungarian Greek Catholic Church, Macedonian Greek Catholic Church, Slovak Greek Catholic Church, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. I removed the epithet 'Byzantine' from Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci and Greek Byzantine Catholic Church. In the cases of these churches, the terms 'Greek' and 'Byzantine' have no official and historical value. You should not use a vague interpretation of these terms and apply them against official and historical usage. I mean by official and historical usage the official and historical usage at the Vatican. Those who used a Constantinopolitan rite were never called Greeks unless they were Greeks. Please provide official and historical documents to support the use of the terms 'Greek' and 'Byzantine'. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Filioque?

I came to this page in search of a quick answer as to whether Eastern Catholics include the Filioque. The article states that this was a reason for the Great Schism (duh) and, a few lines later, that Eastern churches wishing to restore Communion with Rome were welcomed back without "question of requiring them to adopt the customs of the Latin Church." I'm sure there's some WP: bit about wikipedia not being a cheat sheet, and it is entirely possible that the answer to my question is somewhere buried in the article, but I think it's reasonable to ask that a point as important as this be addressed clearly and in a position of some prominence within the article.

Do Eastern Catholics believe in the filioque? Does it vary from particular church to particular church? Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a complex question. My understanding is that all Catholic churches - both Latin and Western - hold in common dogmatic matters. That said, some of the Eastern Catholic churches ommit the filioque in when they recite the Creed. Not including the words "and the Son" does not signfy disagreement with the Roman doctrine, but merely keeps to the traditional Eastern practice and formula.
At least that's how I've heard some describe how it works.
In practice, many of the Eastern Catholic Churches no lomger include the Filioque, although some do. In my parish (Melkite) it was dropped some years ago. Some of the more Latinized churches such as the Maronite retain it.
There are many Eastern Catholics who would have no problem with flushing the Filioque. On that note, I expect that some of the nihil obstat crowd may wish to offer an opinion. Majoreditor (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The 14 Eastern Catholic Churches of Byzantine Rite (at least those of which I have certain knowledge) do not include "Filioque". Of the 8 other Eastern Catholic Churches, at least the Ethiopic (Ethiopia and Eritrea) Catholic Church and the [Maronite do include it.
The Armenian Catholic Church (one of the 8 non-Byzantine Eastern Catholic Churches) naturally uses the Armenian Nicene Creed with its many additions to the original text. These additions do not include "Filioque".
Even Latin Catholics do not include "Filioque" when reciting the Nicene Creed in Greek, since the exact meaning of the word translated into English as "who proceeds" is different in Latin and in Greek. This will explain the omission of "Filioque" in the liturgy of Churches that use the Byzantine Rite, which was originally composed in Greek. Lima (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The dogmatic issue between Rome and Constantinople was always that the latter denounced the "filioque" as heretical, while Rome merely demanded that Constantinople accept the orthodoxy of the creed with or without the addition. Hence, reciting the filioque was not imposed on any Eastern Catholic Church. Str1977 (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
As a complete outsider to Catholicism I came to this page with a similar question which I expected to be simple: How did the Eastern Catholic Churches come to be, and when? What is the story? Were they once affiliated with Eastern Orthodoxy but then later re-established communion with Rome, or are they churches which never split with Rome when the Eastern Orthodox churches did? I never found a clear answer to either of these questions in this article. I would think that information as basic and important as this should be prominently discussed in an article like this, and easy to find.Spiritquest (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
As is at least hinted by the above, the Eastern Catholic Churches are of quite different origins. Some can and do boast of never having broken communion with Rome. So when did these Churches come to be? With the arrival of Christianity in their areas is the short answer. Others have a much more recent origin. In the case of the Ruthenian Church, for example, the (re)union with Rome came with the Union of Brest. To give an account for each and every one of the Eastern Catholic Churches of when they were constituted as Church in full communion with Rome (and when, for some of them, the break of communion first occurred) would take far too much space in this general article about them. The information on this matter for each of them must be sought in the article on the Church in question. Esoglou (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Catholic Martyrs?

I don't understand why this section is here, and if it ought to be here why there is only one listed, and this fairly recently. It seems very odd to have it here the way it is. Orpheus42 08:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. The section should be developed or removed. In its present form it's not suitable for inclusion. Majoreditor 14:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
What was wrong with it? I found it in the history, and wonder why it didn't include Blessed Klymentiy Sheptytsky, who was beatified as a martyr well before this exchange and deletion. Should we reconsider a list of Eastern Catholic martyrs? Or have a list of Eastern Catholic Saints and Blesseds?Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Polish Slavonic Rite

I have read that in prewar Poland there were some Byzantine Slavonic rite churches created on the iniative of the Latin Church in Poland that were subject to the local Latin bishop unaffiliated with any established Ritual Church like the UGCC or other Union of Brest product. These chuches many due to persecutions from the 2nd Republic government, left Catholicism to join the Polish Orthodox Church and the rest were lost during World War 2. However, 1 parish fulltime and 2 other parish on a semi basis still celebrate this variety. Shouldnt it be mentioned? Here is a link with some reading of it http://rumkatkilise.org/Belarus%20catholic_church_in_poland.htm Nova2488 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If they are not recognized by the Holy See as a sui iuris Church, I think they are not such a Church, any more than the few Anglican Use parishes in the United States constitute a sui iuris Church. Esoglou (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thanks, that makes a lot of sense Nova2488 (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
These churches were part of the Catholic Church. The Eastern liturgical rite priests ministered to their faithful and were persecuted by the Communists. The first Ukrainian Redemptorist bishop, Nicholas Charnetsky, was Apostolic Visitor for the Ukrainian Catholics in the Wołyń Voivodeship (1921–39) and Polesie Voivodeship in the Second Polish Republic.[1] He was beatified in 2001 as a martyr.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoBoMisiu (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Rant in "terminology" section

It is quite evident that the initial paragraph in this section is merely a rant in the continued terminology issue. The individuals on the "Roman.." side are simply cherry picking the very few documents which mention the "Roman" prefix. This is inappropriate and unnecessary unless it also mentions the fact that for the GRAND majority of Church documents it refers to itself as simply "The Catholic Church" or just "The Church".

Sourced documentation of this is so overwhelming, beginning with the latest version of Church beliefs: the Catechism of the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Providing a sources for every time the Church refers to itself as such could take most of this article. I'd say the Catechism more than suffices to make the point.

But to present merely the "Roman-" terminologic POV without the entire picture is quite insincere to the topic and certainly not from a Neutral point of view. Micael (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

List merges?

The two separate lists under the current sections "Membership" and "Eastern Catholic Churches" could probably merged, for convenience by better overview. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Since no objection, merge done. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Uniate

Only some Eastern Catholic Churches were Uniate Churches. From what I have read, the term usually described the metropolitanate in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth – after the Metropolitanate of Kiev (1458–1596) bishops formally entered into ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church in the Union of Brest. See Josaphat Kuntsevych § Historical and religious background, pl:Kościół unicki w I Rzeczypospolitej (translation), and uk:Руська унійна церква (translation).

Was "Uniate Church" the actual name of the Metropolitanate of Kiev in ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church?

Is Uniat or Uniate used as a pejorative term by anyone other than Russian Orthodox? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably not RS-worthy, but this might be a helpful starting point. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 23:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The word "Uniate" is defined (Merriam-Webster) as "a Christian of a church adhering to an Eastern rite and discipline but submitting to papal authority", with "Uniate" also as a derived adjective. Oxford defines it (as an adj.) as "Relating to any community of Christians in eastern Europe or the Near East that acknowledges papal supremacy but retains its own liturgy". Historical origins aside, the word is defined as meaning "Eastern Catholic". I think this settles it and warrants removal of the discussion tag in the article. Anyone can feel free to put it back if they disagree. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 04:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jujutsuan: I reverted your removal of {{discuss}}. The term Uniate in article is not just about the current usage but the historical – there are entries Uniate churches with definitions of:
"are the eastern churches in communion with the Catholic Church but nonetheless retaining their own ecclesiastical languages, rites, and canon law. The term 'uniate' (latin unio, Polish unia) was first used by opponents of the Union of Brest-Litovsk (1596), which brought the Ruthenian Church of Poland into communion with the Church of Rome." (2003, The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance)
"More properly Eastern Catholic or Eastern-rite Catholic Churches. Churches in union with Rome, but retaining their own language, customs, and canon law [...] The name 'Uniates' is a disparaging term used by the Orthodox Church [...] the Maronite Church has a history distinct from Orthodoxy. [...] In fact, far from reinforcing local tradition, all of these unions led to a process of Latinization, which demonstrated to Orthodoxy at large that this was a process of proselytization, not of seeking a union of equals. The Eastern Catholic Churches rapidly became an obstacle to union, rather than a step towards it." (2000, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions)
I think understanding these distinctions over time is important but little is found online in English. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This is detail that would best be included in the Terminology section. It does not, however, call into question whether Uniate is synonymous with Eastern Catholic; even the definitions you've just cited support that. Being used first for the Ruthenian Catholics does not exclude its use for the other 22 ECCs. Both of your cited definitions identify Uniate churches as Eastern and sui iuris but in communion with Rome. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 21:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It will be best to move the "Terminology" section to later in the article and begin with the History section, as do most of Wikipedia articles on religious organizations. Thoughts/discussion? Majoreditor (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Majoreditor: Is that the convention? I thought that Terminology usually preceded Background/History sections. Is this laid out in the MOS somewhere for us to refer to? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Jujutsuan. I looked through MoS; it offers no set guidance other than stating that each Wikiproject can set guidelines for ordering sections. Few of them do; of those that do, some put terminology first and some place history first. I didn'd find specific guidance in Wikiproject:Religion.
I looked through Featured Articles and Good Articles on religious organizations and churches. Most of them don't begin the body of the article with a terminology section; for example, see Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Churches of God, Raelism, or Opus Dei. I found just a couple which start with a Terminology section, such as Catholic Church. I think the article on the Catholic Church has it as a first section due to the intense debate among Wikipedia editors over the past 10 years over the article's name (Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church). There just doesn't seem to be much reason to spend a lot of time at the beginning of the article on the archaic term "Uniate" - isn't it more valuable to readers to start with either history or an overview of the bodies comprising the Eastern Catholic Churches? Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majoreditor. I'm personally partial to starting with terminology in this article, since it not only covers "Uniate" but also the rite–particular church distinction, which is something that should be understood early on as readers go through the article. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 04:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Please suggest improvements in the article. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 16:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Blatant Bias

This paragraph:

"Within each Church, no longer in communion with the Church of Rome, there arose a group that considered it important to restore that communion. The See of Rome accepted them as they were, without any requirement to adopt the customs of the Latin Church."

And the one that follows it shows blatant pro-Rome bias and is inappropriate cheerleading for an encyclopedia article. TheCormac (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to improve in the way you find suitable. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 08:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Content repetitions

Although I have attempted to merge some content, there still seems to be some reteated contents in a few places in this article which is a little bit too much. Please feel free to help. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC) Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Update done. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eastern Catholic Churches. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as consensus to keep the article at it's current name has been established. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 16:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


Eastern Catholic Churches → Eastern Catholic churches – Since "churches" are not referring to name. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. A quick google search shows that "Church"/"Churches" are routinely capitalized by website sources and in print. I'm also not entirely sure what the nominator means. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nohomersryan. The common convention is to capitalize "Church" when used to refer to a denomination/communion of churches. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incomplete?

@Chicbyaccident: could you please explain what you mean by placing the {{incomplete}} tag on the article last month? You did not open a corresponding discussion about it. What do you think is missing and how can we address it? Elizium23 (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the persecution section could be improved: civil war in Syria, Iraq, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I have changed the tag to {{expand section}} and moved it under "Persecution" accordingly. Elizium23 (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Eastern Catholic Churches. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia on groupings of Christian denominations

I opened a discussion on groupings in Christianity, of which there currently seems to lack a consensus on Wikipedia. The discussion might be of interest for followers of this talk page. Please see: Talk:Christianity#Denominations. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Eastern and Oriental

In English, we distinguish between Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Do we maintain that distinction in reference to Catholic Churches?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No. The distinction in English between Eastern and Oriental varieties of Orthodoxy is useful because they represent separate communions with different sets of beliefs (roughly: the former Chalcedonian, the latter non-Chalcedonian), but since all of the Eastern Catholic Churches are in communion with each other and accept all of the teaching of the Catholic Church, there is no appropriate parallel distinction to make among Eastern Catholic Churches. (It is perhaps also worth keeping in mind that "oriental" is just a Latin word for "eastern," so all of these churches are already referred to as "orientales" in Latin.) LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is Churches capitalized?

There is no reason why the word "Churches" is repeatedly Capitalized. I understand the word Church in "Eastern Orthodox Chuch" should be capitilized because it is part of a proper name. However, the word "churches" in "Eastern Catholic churches" is not a proper name for any thing, person, or organization. It does not qualify under MOS:PN. It is a general descriptive noun for these group of chuches. For example: American people and List of Orthodox churches are not capitalized correctly. — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Janwed64 et al. I completely agree. Regardless of how often "churches" is mistakenly capitalised in the media and even in church documents the word should not be capitalised in the name of this article and it should be changed to "Eastern Catholic churches". Afterwriting (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
If there is no further discussion or objections I intend to move this article to "Eastern Catholic churches" within a few days. Afterwriting (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Its the proper name of a defined aggregation which is generally used with definite article the. It should be capitalized, see basic Google Ngram for comparison of cases, and American English Ngram vs British English Ngram for obvious difference in capitalization. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how these ngrams indicate anything about whether capitalisation should be used or not. We need much better reasons than this to retain the capitalisation of "Churches" in this article's name as it still appears to be contrary to Wikipedia's own capitalisation style. We shouldn't, for instance, write "Anglican Churches" or "Methodist Churches" even though these may be commonly used in publications. Afterwriting (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Afterwriting: how about Three Great Gardens of Japan which is an example in MOS:NAMECAPS. The example is an aggregation that is a proper name with Gardens capitalized. Other examples include the aggregation of British colonies called the Thirteen Colonies. But style guides agree with you on "Eastern Catholic churches".[3][4] Other than self identification that capitalizes and the two examples, I have nothing. I also found that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops uses both "Eastern Catholic churches" (looks like members of the set) and an entry titled "Eastern Catholic Churches" (the set) in a glossary.[5] –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I prefer to have "church" capitalized. Eastern Catholic Churches are unlike Anglican or Methodist churches. There is an official list that says what churches are in and out of the group, unlike Anglican or Methodists. This makes it more like the Three Great Gardens of Japan. I also note that Reuters in their style guide that User:BoBoMisiu links to says "Eastern Rite Churches" in this sentence fragment, "Eastern Rite Churches returned to communion with Rome ...." but another place it says "Eastern Catholic churches: Eastern Rite churches, the ancient Middle Eastern churches in communion with the Roman Catholic Church." [6] I prefer the capitalization because capitalization makes it clear that this grouping is not like Anglican or Methodist groupings. This is a formal, distinct, clearly defined group with a proper name like the Anglican Communion or even the Anglican Continuum. It's a tough call. It could go either way. I prefer the clarity that capitalization brings – this is a distinct, formal, proper group as indicated by its fully capitalized proper name. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I support "churches". I would suggest bringing about a proper move request. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I prefer "Churches". This is a proper and well-defined group with a specific list of members. It even has its own proper code of law, as a group, which would seem to suggest that the various Eastern Catholic Churches do actually constitute a single, juridically defined, proper entity together (like the United States). LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastern Catholic Churches. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Catholic Church naming conventions RfC

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention that may be of interest. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced/unexplained statistics

Hello, someone has been fiddling with the statistics on numbers of the faithful in this article. The data is already cited to the Annuario Pontificio but the year is not specified. This in itself is an error, and should be addressed. But there is a huge difference between 10 million and 18 million, so we cannot accept the changes without a specific source cited for them. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Eastern Catholic (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eastern Catholic (disambiguation). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Editors disagree on whether the article subject is a proper noun. Supporters of the move argue that the term refers to all churches affiliated with Eastern Christianity, while opposers note that the capitalized "Churches" is more commonly used to refer to the subject as a "defined group". (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 20:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Eastern Catholic Churches → Eastern Catholic churches – This is a repetition of a request made a couple of years ago by myself (under former username): Talk:Eastern_Catholic_Churches/Archive_3#Requested_move_16_November_2016. However, I'm not sure the two commentators understood the rationale. This article doesn't cover a communion of churches. It covers a few churches. Not Churches. We routinely disregard Certain American Way of Spelling of Things. PPEMES (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Kostas20142 (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: This might a bit tricky. At first I thought to support it, because it refers to a class of things rather than a single thing. However, I wonder if it could be considered a proper noun since it is a specific group of 23 churches. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
This is not a "specific group" or "class" of churches. It is merely... Eastern Catholic churches - in communion with the Pope. Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches is another thing. PPEMES (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Not a proper noun, as others have pointed out. My previous comment was not well thought out. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. "Eastern Catholic Churches" is not a proper noun. Srnec (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Srnec. —Ntmamgtw (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This page is about church bodies (usually spelt with capital C), not church buildings. Also, despite being various in form and in organisation, the 23 church bodies of Eastern Catholicism definitely form a set apart from the rest of the Catholic Church, recognized especially by the role of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. Note that the Catholic Church seems to use Churches consistently in its publications, even when using "Oriental" instead of "Eastern" or dropping "Catholic": [7] Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris [8] Eastern Churches, Churches of the East, Oriental Churches, Eastern Churches in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome [9] Oriental Catholic Churches [10] Eastern Catholic Churches, Catholic Eastern Churches etc. Google Ngram seems to show a preference for the capitalized form, with differences between American English Ngram vs British English Ngram. A another previous discussion on the issue seems to indicate that Eastern Catholic Churches should be capitalized when considering them as a formal, distinct, clearly defined group, and written Eastern Catholic churches when considering members of the set. The current article is clearly abotu the set as a whole. Also pinging participants to the previous move discussion: @Music1201, Nohomersryan, and TonyBallioni:. Place Clichy (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) While I was typing this answer, another user found there was enough consensus to close the discussion. I would like the discussion to go a bit further and have of course no opposition if a consensus is found later. Place Clichy (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Place Clichy. When considered as a formal group it is a proper noun and should be capitalized. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Even if someone else incorrectly capitalise nouns, why should we? Even if I consider this article clearly about "members of the set" or in plain English "an article about certain churches", if it was indeed considered a "formal group" of churches, just why should "churches" be written capitalised? PPEMES (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Precisely, capitalization is not incorrect here. As some other editors said in this previous discussion, [it is] the proper name of a defined aggregation which is generally used with definite article the; this is a distinct, formal, proper group as indicated by its fully capitalized proper name; this is a proper and well-defined group with a specific list of members; it even has its own proper code of law, as a group, which would seem to suggest that the various Eastern Catholic Churches do actually constitute a single, juridically defined, proper entity together (like the United States). Other examples cited include the Three Great Gardens of Japan which is an example in MOS:NAMECAPS, the aggregation of British colonies called the Thirteen Colonies, the Anglican Communion or even the Anglican Continuum. (@Janweh64, Afterwriting, BoBoMisiu, Iloilo Wanderer, and LacrimosaDiesIlla: also pinging contributors in this discussion.) Place Clichy (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The Three Great Gardens of Japan may qualify as a distinct, proper entity (although I hesitate). Isn't Thirteen Colonies a name for the designated territory? The Eastern Catholic churches, on the other hand, are merely a few churches that are in full communion with the Holy See and thus the Catholic Church. We really need more sources backing assertion that they together form a distinct entity as a group, much less under a common name. Until, this article is only a short name for "List of Eastern Catholic churches in communion with the Holy See in Rome". Hypothetically, we could maintain article Catholic Church but introduce a list "List of churches in full communion with the Holy See" - even these together would be an even more distinct group, it still would refer to "churches", not "Churches", since church is a noun. Whereas obviously the Catholic Church is dealt with as a proper name. Bottom line, any document collectively referring to the Eastern churches in communion should of course be Named As Is, but I fail to see how that makes this list of churches a distinct group under a proper name. PPEMES (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
One thing I notice about Three Great Gardens of Japan and Thirteen Colonies is that they are specific selections rather than broad categories. Britain had more than thirteen colonies, but these thirteen are special, since these are the ones that rebelled together. Japan has many gardens, but these gardens have a special status as favorites. In fact, the number of entries is identified specifically in the names of those. Similar cases may be Five Pillars of Islam, Ten Commandments, Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, Seven Wonders of Canada (and similar), and FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. Should Five precepts be Five Precepts, as is done for Five Precepts (Taoism)? Are there additional churches that are known as being "Catholic" and "Eastern" that are not in full communion with the papacy in Rome? If so, then this group should perhaps have uppercase letters. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The article does not describe a "Church" but Various "churches". Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 11:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the arguments already adduced by Place Clichy and TonyBallioni, with special emphasis on following the Catholic Church's own usage. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Since when is Wikipedia bound to replicate grammatical incorrections in sources? PPEMES (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Please calm down. (1) Nobody said Wikipedia was "bound" to do anything. (2) You are simply wrong in describing the capitalization practice at stake here as a "grammatical incorrection," and for at least three reasons: first, because capitalization is not a matter of grammar; second, because there are cases (like this one) where there is not universal agreement about whether or not capitalization is allowed (or required or proscribed), so this is not clearly a case of doing something "incorrectly"; and thirdly, because you are using the word "incorrection" to mean something which it simply does not mean (at least not in English; the word—if it is considered standard at all—is not simply a synonym for "mistake" or "error," but rather means something more like "lack of correction" or "failure to discipline"). This last point is ironic and possibly an instance of Muphry's Law. (3) Wikipedia often does try to follow the practice/usage of its sources, and the Catholic Church would seem to be the most definitive source on this particular topic. (4) We're having a discussion about this precisely to find out what various editors here think and how they understand the relevant Wikipedia policies to interact with the real-world data. You have your opinion, and I have mine. I expressed mine simply and clearly. If the issue were as cut and dry as you seem to want to believe it is, there would not be a need for this discussion. You don't need to be quite so aggressive in replying to people who disagree with you. Disagreement is allowed. (5) If you want to argue, try making an argument instead of just asking a rhetorical question which strawmans my very simple point (and which you've asked in a slightly different form previously). Obviously I didn't find your point convincing when you made it previously in response to the other editors who disagree with you, and I don't find it convincing now that you've repeated it either. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! My bad: error. PPEMES (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The rationale of supports (mine included) is that the specific term used in the title is mainly descriptive and is one of several legitimate descriptions. The rationale of the opposes is that this is an official class of 23 churches. How about Eastern Churches (Catholic) as a compromise? The term "Eastern Churches" is official (Oriental Churches would work as well). I do think "Eastern Catholic", like "Roman Catholic", is a term of art that should be capitalized (and sources agree), but "Eastern Catholic Churches" is a bridge too far. We could also say "Eastern Catholic Uniate Churches", for example, and be equally correct (if old-fashioned). Srnec (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
"Eastern Catholic" is a religious designation and should stay capitalised as such. Other than that, I see no reason to use any exceptionate, more complicating, and less readable title than "Eastern Catholic churches". PPEMES (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
"Eastern Churches (Catholic)" is the only one of the three alternatives you suggest that I find even plausible. "Oriental Churches" is too old-fashioned sounding in contemporary English-language Catholic discourse, and I would object quite strongly to using "Uniate" to refer to all 23 of the existing Churches, since it is usually used to refer to bodies that chose to enter into Union with Rome at some point and which have corresponding non-Catholic sister churches; the Maronites (at least), however, do not merit such a description since they have never been divided from Rome (at least by their own account) and have no corresponding non-Catholic sister Church. My own experience suggests that the most common term in use in English to refer to the group of churches described in this article is, in fact, "Eastern Catholic Churches," a term which is apparently preferred to simply "Eastern Churches" since this latter is ambiguous inasmuch as it might just as easily refer to the non-Catholic Eastern Churches. Which is a long way of saying that I think I would prefer to lose the capitalization battle with regard to this article title rather than see the title changed to "Eastern Churches (Catholic)." Others' mileage may vary. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The routine capitalization of all three words in this term in English texts from the Vatican can be confirmed with a search query: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22eastern+catholic+churches%22+site%3Avatican.va . Bistropha (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Each Church, such as Maronite Church is in capital letter, so also all of them shall be in capital letters. Further the use of small letters could be pejorative, considering them as a bunch of entities, while the fact to be a Church (in capital letter) is an important fact in their theology. A ntv (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, each church should be capitalised as such. To write nouns with small letters is not meant to show less respect to nouns. They are not one entity with coherent theology as a collective per se. In fact, this list precisely merely refer to a "bunch of entities". That's why it should not be capitalised. PPEMES (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
These Churches are not at all a "bunch of entities": just for example they are ruled under a jurisdictional point of view by one single law, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (with "C" capitalized). A ntv (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think of "Eastern Catholic Churches" as a proper noun, the name of the specific, defined, distinct group of Churches of the Catholic Church that are distinct from the dominant Western Church. There are other denominations that consider themselves both catholic and eastern but are not part of the Catholic Church or the Eastern Catholic Churches. It therefore helps to talk of Eastern Catholic Churches vs. eastern catholic churches. Language is not necessarily exact or scientific, including capitalization. It exist to help communicate an idea. The idea here is that these are distinct, defined group with a distinct, defined name. Small-c "churches" would not communicate that idea. Trying to be too exacting with the language will lead to confusion, I think. It is in meaning and essence a proper noun even if technically the name is an gray area. Language has lots of such messy areas. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Iloilo Wanderer. "Eastern Catholic Churches" is pointing into a specific group therefore it should be capitalized. Barca (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per normal MOS capitalization rules: "President of the United States" but "presidents of the United States". There is a lot of off-point talk above. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Statistics for jurisdictions, bishops and priests

Hello @LacrimosaDiesIlla:

Between this edit and the subsequent ones, I am not sure if you intend to keep consistent statistics from the CNEWA report, which has stats for bishops, jurisdictions and priests, or prefer to use different data. When I had cleaned up the table to consistently use the CNEWA source, I had only used gcatholic or another source when figures where not available there. I think consistency is important. Anyway, both these sources take their information from the same Annuario pontifico. Place Clichy (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Place Clichy: Good catch. My thinking kind of evolved as I worked on editing the table, but my original objection was that there was something off about the table itself having a big notice saying that the "data" came from one place and then having a footnote in the header saying that the information in those columns came from somewhere else. That was sneaky and not in a good way. When I wanted to check/update the numbers, I realized that I didn't want to be responsible for counting up all the rows in the CNEWA tables to figure out how many jurisdictions there were and that people were probably going to try to keep the numbers of jurisdictions and bishops "live" anyway (as they obviously had done for several of the Churches). So I think this is a nice balance and at least it's very clear where the different numbers are coming from. I don't think I would object to changing the jurisdiction and bishop numbers to the CNEWA 2017 data, as long as it was very clear that those numbers were a snapshot of the past and provided that we thought it was possible to prevent people from trying to update individual numbers when bishop events happen in one of the Eastern Churches. Ultimately the numbers for jurisdictions and bishops from CNEWA and GCatholic will not match because CNEWA is a snapshot based on the 2017 Annuario Pontificio, whereas GCatholic is updated constantly as bishops are ordained (or die) and as jurisdictions are created (or suppressed). LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@LacrimosaDiesIlla: Sorry for the late reply. I appreciate your effort to use consistent sources for figures, we obviously share this goal. I agree that GCatholic (or Catholic Hierarchy) is updated more frequently that the yearly CNEWA report. However they are self-published sites, while the CNEWA report is a published official document, which is why I had used the CNEWA figure for jurisdictions and bishops when both were available. I don't suggest changing it back though. The consistency of the information and clear statements of where the numbers are coming from already make this table a much better one than many other similar tables on Wikipedia on religious organizations. Place Clichy (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Place Clichy: Great, thanks for the good discussion and the compliment. I'm glad we're on the same page. Hopefully, other editors who come by will be as well. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Pejorative

Hi, I guess someone is offended by the article explaining that "Uniate" is a pejorative term. Well that is the sourced fact, and the correct place to discuss it here in this article. It is vandalism to remove the sourced section without a valid rationale. Elizium23 (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I have invited the IP editor to present his rationale in full, for deleting sourced information about the terminology herein. He is welcome to try to convince us that Wikipedia is better off without it. If he fails to discuss, then he will be blocked for edit-warring. Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eastern_Catholic_Churches/Archive_3&oldid=1156574904"