Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Revive discussion of "Roman Catholic Church"

A slight aside, but an important one for the purposes of accuracy, and one which corrects a common misconception: can we please restore the fact that the accurate definition of "Catholicism" encompasses Anglicanism. Henry VIII's break with the papacy was not a departure from Catholicism, it was the creation of a new branch of Catholicism. Anglicanism, like Roman Catholicism are subsets of Catholicism, therefore it is misleading to give the impression that Catholicism is an alterantive to Anglicanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpotter1973 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The lede sentence currently begins with:

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is...

As has been previously discussed, properly speaking, Roman Catholic Church refers only to the Latin Church (i.e. not to the Eastern Catholic Churches). Therefore, it should be clarified that referring to the whole Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church is not really accurate. I propose the following modification to the lede sentence as follows:

The Catholic Church, sometimes referred to as the Roman Catholic Church, is...

Notes

References

Pinging Elizium23, who participated in the previous discussion. Ergo Sum 18:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Better. Would this following be a considerable further improvement for the note? "Although more distinctively referring to the Latin Church, the Roman Catholic Church has sometimes been used to refer synecdochically to the whole Catholic Church". PPEMES (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@PPEMES: I like the idea of working it that it is synecdochical. However, the first part reads a little vaguely to me. "Distinctively" could mean something other than properly. Also, it's probably a good idea to preserve the link to Roman Catholic (term). (See modification above). Ergo Sum 21:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, implied maintained linking per your default. About "proper", sure, if that word gets accepted as WP:NPOV by the Roman Catholic-proponents. PPEMES (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@PPEMES: Ok, so does the footnote look good to you now? Ergo Sum 21:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

To me it looks good. I believe you should be able to carry it out per WP:BOLD. Thanks! PPEMES (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The cited source does not use the term "Roman Catholic", so it can hardly be used to source the claim in the note. I have removed it. It also contradicts Roman Catholic (term). –Srnec (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: It most certainly does: "Roman Church may be used as equivalent to Latin Church for the patriarchate" & "It follows also that the expression Latin (or even Roman) Catholic is quite justifiable, inasmuch as we express by it that we are not only Catholics but also members of the Latin or Roman patriarchate." Also, it's good practice to open the talk page discussion prior to removing content that has already been established by consensus. I'm going to restore the removed text pending the outcome of this discussion. Ergo Sum 01:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"Roman Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonyms. The source expresses a POV ("we express") from 100 years ago and simply isn't RS for the claim being made about terminology. Srnec (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. I don't see the contradiction between the footnote and the article. The second sentence of the lede of Roman Catholic (term) seems to express the same view as this footnote. Ergo Sum 02:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence: "Roman Catholic is a term sometimes used to differentiate members of the Catholic Church in full communion with the Pope in Rome from other Christians". You are correct that the expression Latin (or even Roman) Catholic is quite justifiable, inasmuch as we express by it that we are not only Catholics but also members of the Latin or Roman patriarchate, which I did not find when I searched the article for the phrase "Roman Catholic", does justify the footnote, but the problem of its POV remains. It is making a normative statement that applies to Catholics and does not represent a NPOV (or necessarily even a correct Catholic one). Srnec (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I draw your attention to the second sentence, which is an alternate use of the term. You will also find a discussion of whether to rephrase or otherwise modify the relationship of the two sentences on that article's talk page. (Should also ping PPEMES. Ergo Sum 03:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as far as I can see the assertion being made here is simply untrue. "Roman Catholic" meaning the entire church in communion with the Pope is the meaning given by the Oxford English Dictionary ("Roman Catholic, adj. Designating that part of the Christian Church which acknowledges the Pope as its head; of, relating to, associated with, or (supposedly) characteristic of this church"); and is the way the term has been used by the church itself - unless you are saying that when Pope Pius XII, in Humani Generis, says "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing" (docet corpus Christi mysticum et Ecclesiam Catholicam Romanam unum idemque esse) - he means that only the Latin church constitutes the body of Christ? That assertion would seem, to put it mildly, controversial. I can't see any justification at all for saying that the term "properly" refers only to the Latin church - in the vast majority of cases, including official ones, it designates the entire church in communion with Rome; there are minor occasional uses when it has instead designated only the Latin church, but these uses are by far in the minority and in no way more "official" or "proper". TSP (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a paradox. It is certainly possible to refer to the whole Church as the Roman Catholic Church. But when referring to individual parishes or dioceses, typical and widespread connotation in English is that it means "Of the Latin Church". For example, all our articles on the Roman Catholic Diocese of X. St. Peter's Roman Catholic Parish, et. al. But yes, what I have rarely, if ever, seen it to mean is the sui iuris Latin Church to the exclusion of the 23 Eastern Catholic Churches. Elizium23 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd suspect that if the term is used largely in connection with Latin churches, that will in large part be because the term is used predominantly in the the UK and US, where the Latin church is dominant; and also because if a church is designated, say, "Armenian Catholic", that is already unambigous and "Roman" would be unnecessary as a further distinguisher. I don't think it constitutes evidence that "Roman Catholic" usually or 'properly' means "Latin rite", especially given the prominent uses I mentioned above which demonstrate otherwise. TSP (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it does mean Latin Church. Eastern Catholics will frequently bristle at being called "Roman Catholic". They are Byzantine Catholic, or Maronite Catholic, or Chaldean Catholic, not Roman Catholic. It's definitely a commonplace and well-understood distinction (that is, as far as Eastern Catholic Churches are known and understood.) Elizium23 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@TSP: Can you supply the citation/link and full quote from Humani Generis that refers to the whole Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church? If so, then I'd be inclined to switch my position. Ergo Sum 15:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: Humani Generis on the Vatican website - mention is in paragraph 27. (The exact phrasing is in the English version, but the Latin version is much the same - "Ecclesiam Catholicam Romanam"). TSP (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@TSP: I think I'm sold. Ergo Sum 16:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd caution against selecting one single in-house source as determining the above query. Both this referred source in particular, as well as a general method. Please see: Catholic_Church#Name. PPEMES (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Orientation field

I put Amillennialist in the orientation field (based on the Jehovah Witness article that uses Premillennialist in the orientation field), but Amillennialism is not an essential part of Catholic theology, the orientation field itself is a copy of the theology field, I was talking to User: Elizium23 and we agree it would be better to put Catholicity or Western Christianity in the orientation field on this article, so, what would be better for this field? (The Sr Guy (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC))

The Sr Guy, hang on, my suggestion was to delete the "orientation" field and exclusively use "theology" instead. Elizium23 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Content under section Name needs reviewed...

Hello fellow editors. In this article under the heading, "Name" I believe I found a sentence that may not be as accurate as it could be. Within these sentences, it appears the author is stating that the word Catholic as a Noun is in Ignatius's letter. The word catholic is in his letter, however Ignatius used the word as an Prepositional phrase, ADJECTIVE, not a noun. The NOUN "Catholic Church" was not used until Constantine and then Theodosius's time. (See info in this article regarding the official church of Roman Empire). The Greek in Acts 9:31 for "church throughout all" is the phrase under consideration and it looks like this: ἐκκλησία καθ’ὅλης, pronounced ekklēsia kath’ holēs. "kathmmn holes" is not a noun, but a prepositional phrase with "holes" being an Adjective. The thought being that a man cannot belong to a prepositional phrase - adjective. What this of course means is that the author, Ignatius used the term as an adjective, not as a noun. καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία he katholike ekklesia is the prepositional phrase used by Ignatius - adjective. That's not a biblical word. The NOUN Catholic Church was not in use till hundreds of years after the apostles died. And in fact, the catholic organization was not a formal group until Constantine created the term "Catholic" church.... Catholicism was not the official religion of Rome till Theodosius in 380 in the Wiki article.

Instead of saying καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία he katholike is "The Catholic Church" we need to state that the term "The Catholic Church" is not scriptural and is not found in any literature till Constantine and Theodosius.

"Catholic (from Greek: καθολικός, romanized: katholikos, lit. 'universal') was first used to describe the church in the early 2nd century.[23] The first known use of the phrase "the catholic church" (καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία he katholike ekklesia) occurred in the letter written about 110 AD from Saint Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans.[note 2]"

--Mark0880 (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Mark0880, frankly this line of reasoning sounds like a crock that is closely related to Protestant narratives that attempt to discredit the Catholic Church by having Constantine found it instead of Christ. You're going to need a significant preponderance of reliable secondary sources to back up your narrative. Your own etymological analysis of some ancient texts will not be acceptable. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

My source is any Greek dictionary and a knowledge of English literature. you're getting angry at something that nobody else would get angry about. that deeply concerns me especially when you are presenting yourself as a scholarly person with academic research....2600:100E:B040:DD4B:D42D:F7F8:EC97:1638 (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)mark0880

I am not angry, I am just here to tell you that your "knowledgeable say-so" will be rejected on Wikipedia, because we cannot accept original research such as what you describe. Elizium23 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, it was very uncool of you to personally attack me and doubly uncool to use email to do it, so that you could fly under the radar of scrutiny on a Wikipedia talk page. Don't do it again, or we'll be at WP:ANI. Elizium23 (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

There no personal attack just an observation. I observe that you seem agitated and irritated by my comment and source citation the Greek dictionary in Greek New testament. I definitely still am concerned that you are taking offense of a dictionary citation. that's rather disconcerting to me. And please do not ever say that my scholarly research is a "crock"... I took offense of that comment, but I am concerned about your unwillingness to consider a Greek dictionary. Mark0880 (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)mark0880

I have reformatted each and every message you have posted here because their formatting was inhibiting me and other people from properly replying. Please review the guidelines on how to use talk pages.

There seems to be a lot of "taking offense" in your world. I don't care about the dictionary one way or another, it is a fine source for the definitions of Greek words in an article on the Greek language, or articles in the Greek Wikipedia. But it is your interpretation that I take issue with, not the dictionary. You're taking ancient texts, WP:PRIMARY sources, and applying linguistic heuristics to them in order to reach a conclusion. That is forbidden here. You can't do it. Don't be offended. I'm not offended. I'm just telling you it won't fly, you'll be reverted, you'll be blocked if you persist. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200. Elizium23 (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That may be, nevertheless, neither you nor I will ever change the fact that the greek is a prepositional phrase, and Ignatius used it as an adjective. It's also forbidden to propagandize on Wikipedia. We use actual sources, not feelings. Feelings are a poor guide.

Mark0880 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)mark0880

We're at an impasse most likely... It might be the case that you won't use sources that your organization has not approved. I approach life differently. I research the topic using all resources I can find and weigh the evidence from there. It is a shame that your article will have mistakes in it. I dont make changes on WP unless we can agree. It's not professional to make changes w/o checking with our community first. I dislike editors who refuse to research the way the collegiate community does however.Good luck with your article my friend....

Mark0880 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)mark0880

Christian

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church.

Catholics are one thing; Christians are others. You can´t join them as if they were one. Kikisay (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The History of the term "Catholic" and "Christian" have existed longer than the protestant reformation has existed. Christendom, Christianity, Christians, Catholics have and were used by the Catholic Church for 1,500 years before. Catholic is christian, christian is not necessarily catholic.- AH (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not only bigoted to deny Catholics the term Christian, but factually incorrect. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ, and its succession leads from the Apostles themselves. --User0414 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarification under Saint section

I think it's worth noting under the "Saints" section that the Church considers anyone who is in Heaven to be a saint. The current writing of the topic implies that only certain individuals are considered saints, and while only certain individuals are OFFICIALLY recognized as saints (through canonization), in the strictest sense there are a lot more saints in Heaven than we are for certain aware of. Just for the sake of clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.204.226 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible GA article

Greetings, While working on article assessments, I found Catholic-Protestant relations and changed from unassessed to C, then B class article. Within Rater assessment tool, it (ORES) evaluates the article to be GA. Since this topic is beyond any of my expertise, wondering if editors here would like to go through the Peer review process? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Grammar

@Rantemario: I reverted your edit because it introduced grammatical errors, most glaringly "lose and bind" instead of "loose and bind". The dash instead of hyphen, the capital letter in a Latin incipit of Humani generis. It wasn't a full revert, I kept a couple of your contributions. But now you've asked why and reverted me simultaneously. I will not have an edit war. I will have a discussion with you. Elizium23 (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You reverted my whole edit without even checking. Like just what you did at Slovakia article. I'm sorry if I made some mistakes, but if you want to correct, please do it one by one, just like I did. It's not that hard. I didn't want an edit war either, but I'm not backing down. Rantemario (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"I'm not backing down." I have no idea of the merits of your changes, but that's obviously not a good approach to co-operative editing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but because of my past experience, I sometimes assume that some Wikipedians are just looking for trouble or fights, lol. Some of them just enjoy trolling. I don't blame them, though. Rantemario (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Rantemario, why should I bother picking painstakingly through this gigantic article a second time if you're threatening to revert me? No, that will not do. We will discuss each change here on the talk page and then enact a consensus version. So please begin first by replying to the three examples I gave. Elizium23 (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

1. East–West Schism needs an endash, not a hyphen.
2. work in a local diocese or religious orders should be work in local dioceses or religious orders
3. clergies needs to be changed back to clergy or better yet to clerics.
4. It is an eternal life is a direct quote from the Catechism so change it back.
5. which is (2) a mere permission... is also a direct quote and cannot be "corrected"
6. consecrate to specific mission is a direct quote
7. fulfill is American English and this article uses British English: fulfil.
8. Removing due to a plethora of images... not sure why you removed "a" there from my corrections.
9. {{xt|Both uses adapted Anglican liturgical traditions...} this is a technical term and not a verb but a plural noun.
10. and from Latins in that they have other rites. another direct quote.
11. If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, is a direct quote from the Pope himself.
12. forming what are called the Eastern Catholic Churches the singular verb is not grammatical.
13. led by the Bishop of Rome are the successors grammar again, these are plural objects.
14. and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate grammar in the clause depends on "if".
15. the question whether there was a formal link... remove "the" - "question" is a verb agreeing with the proper nouns before it.
16. a practice adopted from Judaism false Britishism - they don't put "s" in the word in that usage.
17. resulting persecutions were a defining feature... grammar, plural subject gets a plural verb.
18. Catholic practices since the Council of Trent - false Britishism
19. Here with U.S. President... "Herewith" does not make sense in this sentence. Elizium23 (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that some of them are direct quotes. I corrected them one by one. Thanks. BTW, I did write fulfil instead of fulfill, though. Rantemario (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Rantemario, thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Catholic Church is NOT founded by Jesus!

It says Jesus is the founder of Catholic Church. Not true! Catholic church does not follow the teachings of Jesus. Catholic upholds traditions abd focus on Mary and tge saints rather than Jesus.

Do not say that Jesus founded this church because the practices of this cultic church is not in accordance to Jesus teachings. 2404:E801:2001:1AE2:D142:5873:EF0:62AA (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please check the sources supporting that claim, particularly the online archive from the Library of Congress (found here), a very reliable source which states that the Vatican itself has reaffirmed the Church's status as one church founded by Jesus. Your statement also does not keep a neutral point of view, which is important here. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 14:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pupsterlove02: Well, IP has a point that this could be reworded as the church's own opinion (which is what the source you have found says, that the "the Vatican itself has reaffirmed the Church's status") RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: That is a fair point, but it's covered by the note given after the phrase in question, which states that "While the Catholic Church considers itself to be the authentic continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus Christ, it teaches that other Christian churches and communities can be in an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church," giving 2 other sources as well. That being said, it might still be worth putting it in the main body text, what do you think? Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 14:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Head Jargon as note

I provided the sources in my edits see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&type=revision&diff=964939419&oldid=964342116. My idea is to use single quotes around the terms as in 'invisible head' and 'visible head'. I need help framing the note to avoid obvious bias on my part. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC) @TSP: Can you point out what structural changes in my note need to be done or should I start an rfc for thorough discussion?Manabimasu (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey Manabimasu,

The sources you've provided are all internal ones - essentially primary sources speaking from a Catholic perspective. Ideally, if it's agreed this should be included, some reliable secondary sources should be found (see WP:WPNOTRS). At the least, if the current sources are used, they need to be clearly qualified with "According to Catholic teaching" or "According to [source X]" or similar.

It did seem, though, that in the discussion over on the Wikiproject there was some debate over whether this was necessary at all, though - a significant number of people seemed to feel it was fine as it was; so putting forward a specific proposal on wording for discussion here would probably be worth it. TSP (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@TSP: I couldn’t find sources unaffiliated with Catholic Church. I made this edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&oldid=967309351 . Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If you can't find reliable third-party sources, that is often a reason not to make an edit; and I did suggest you propose and try to gain consensus for a wording here first. But fine, I think you've addressed my biggest objection, see what others think. TSP (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Sr Guy: Can you tell me what I need to change? Do I need to add more sources?Manabimasu (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Try to gain consensus. (The Sr Guy (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

RFC Head Jargon as note

Add a note as shown in this diff - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&type=revision&diff=967309351&oldid=967186212.20:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC is not for making protected edit requests. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I started this rfc because the consensus is unknown. See Talk:Catholic_Church#Head_Jargon_as_note as I created the section July 2 and only 2 editors have replied. I need feedback on my edit. Manabimasu (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC);Manabimasu (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your RfC statement, whilst brief, is decidedly non-neutral, and fails to give any kind of context or reasoning. Please read WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCST carefully, before trying again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC note on "head"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) No consensus as to whether the lead section should contain a note on the non-secular head of the catholic church. There was some ambiguity surrounding the question, but generally there was little support for this as posed.  - MrX 🖋 20:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the leade section contain a note on the non-secular head of the catholic church? Manabimasu (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC) To add more context, currently the leade states that the pope is the head of the catholic church. On one side, the argument is there is a dichotomy to the head of the catholic church and can be added in as a note. On the other the inclusion can have undue weight as the note would have bias of sources affiliated with the subject as third party sources on the dichotomy are yet to be found. If this is not neutral, improve it.Manabimasu (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Need a lot more context. What sort of "note" do you mean? What purpose does this change serve? Why does this need an RfC? GeneralNotability (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• I can't add more or I will not be neutral in the opener.These are the secondary sources that state that Jesus Christ is the invisible head of the catholic church.
  • https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-11-on-the-church
  I have found one secondary source and one primary source that the pope is the visible head.
  • https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
  • https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
  This article from EWTN presents the dichotomy.
  • https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/catholic-church-is-the-mystical-body-of-christ-89
  As you can see I have no third party sources, and I look forward to hearing thoughts on why not or why the change should occur.Manabimasu (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not in the lead. Regardless of differences in terminology all Christian denominations consider Jesus/God to be their supreme authority; I can't see the specifics being an important point. Maybe a brief mention in the organization section? --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@RaiderAspect: A mention as in a sentence or as a note in the organization section?Manabimasu (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, not if I correctly understand the question to be, "should the lead indicate that God is the actual head of the Church?" The head of a religious institution is the person or group of persons appointed to oversee and govern it, not the deity, deities, or philosophy worshiped by its members. You wouldn't say that Hercules was the head of the Cult of Hercules, would you? P Aculeius (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  P Aculeius, but it's true. In Catholic theology, Christ (not just God) is the Head of the Body, the Church. Sacred Scripture is very clear about this. Ask an Eastern Orthodox who is the head of his Church, and he will tell you in no uncertain terms, it certainly is no bishop. For Catholics, there is a visible/invisible Head dichotomy that Manabimasu captures quite well here. It is a shame that it was missing from the article for so long. Elizium23 (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: I can't speak for other cults or religions without sources but the statement "According to [Insert cult or religion]" could precede the claim. It is after all the opinion of the cult or religion.Manabimasu (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This should probably be attributed to an official creed of some sort. Large religious groups may not be homogeneous enough for all members to share an opinion on a topic. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Dimadick, in Catholicism, creeds are not an exhaustive statement of faith but a refutation of specific heresies. For example, the Nicene Creed doesn't actually mention the Eucharist. If we had a creed that encompassed the whole faith it would be as long as the Catechism. And so we do, and so it is. Furthermore, it does not matter if Catholic belief is homogeneous, what matters is that there is one Deposit of Faith and it is presented in a uniform way by the Magisterium of the Church, for all to believe or not as their conscience leads. And the Magisterium is crystal clear about the Headship of the Church. I don't know that there is significant dissent, except among sedevacantists? Elizium23 (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe. If this is to happen, it should be first included in the section "Holy See, papacy, Roman Curia, and College of Cardinals" and only then the lead made to match that. The section currently does not explicitly say this, and neither does the entire article on the Pope. As with the other comments above, careful wording should be used to avoid POV. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Manabimasu, the first comment was a request by GeneralNotability for a fuller explanation of the Rfc statement, and I have to agree that it is opaque. Your reply comment, was a concern about being "neutral in the opener", and that's a commendable sentiment, but I believe you misunderstand what "neutral" means wrt to an Rfc statement.

What it does *not* mean, is that you can't define a partisan view, it just needs to be worded so one cannot determine on which side of the question you are. Here's a statement that *could* be used as an Rfc statement: "Should the 'Christianity' article say that John is the head of the Church, and not Jesus?" This extreme view is highly partisan; but you can't tell from the way it is worded, whether the Rfc writer agrees with that statement, or if they worded it that way because some POV editor keeps changing the lead, and the Rfc writer wishes to resolve the situation once and for all by opposing it. That's what "neutrally worded" means.

In addition, following the neutrally worded statement, you can be as biased as you like in your argument of why you favor (or oppose) the Rfc statement; indeed, you should be—folks will want to know your opinion, and why it is that you raised the Rfc in the first place. This is the time to raise your strongest argument for just one side of the issue. For example: "Should the 'Christianity' article say that John is the head of the Church, and not Jesus?" (paragraph break) "I believe this is complete rubbish; not one in a thousand historians of Christianity would make this claim. Show me one that does. ~~~~"

If I'm not mistaken, that's what GeneralNotability was trying to say. As it is, the Rfc statement is so vaguely worded, that it's not clear what is at stake.

P.S., if you decide to change it at this point, WP:REDACT applies, so please follow the recommendation there. Mathglot (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Accessibility

Raising this sentence, because it doesn't seem to have been discussed above. This was added to the lead very recently:

The pope (whose titles also include: "Vicar of Jesus Christ", and "Bishop of Rome"), is the chief pastor[9] of the whole church, entrusted with the universal Petrine[jargon] ministry of unity and correction.

WTF? How is this accessible to the average reader? I mean, come on, "Petrine ministry"?!? I think some of the editors are caught up in a Catholic bubble and they need to dial down the language. Wilso113598 (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2020

Much more could be said, but I believe these were the conditions that caused deep crevices of corruption spiritual disillusionment to enter the Church and eventually lead to the divisions that gave rise to Protestantism's unsuccessful attempts to reform the Church with the Augustinian monk, Martin Luther in 1517. Typical gamer 321 (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elizium23 (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

source [20]

I looked at source [20] which is used to justify that "[the catholic church] is the largest non-government provider of education and health care in the world". The source does state this, but provides minimal discussion and no evidence to support the statement, nor sources to justify it. In my opinion it's not a good source. There appear to be others used within the article but I am struggling to access those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kauri0.o (talk • contribs) 02:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Founder of the catholic church

This article claims that Jesus founded the Cahtolic Church, but i find this affirmation unscientific and faith-based, rather than citing the correct, historic figure. Can someone correct this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:10BE:9:1AF3:7955:D8BE:9517:B1B2 (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

2806:10BE:9:1AF3:7955:D8BE:9517:B1B2, please enlighten us with the scientific evidence of this historic founder! Elizium23 (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

2806:10BE:9:1AF3:7955:D8BE:9517:B1B2,the page says that the Catholic Church states that its founder is Jesus Christ "according to sacred tradition", and that it "follows the teachings of Jesus". Obviously you don't have to believe this, but in my opinion the page makes it clear that the Catholic Church claims Jesus as its founder, not that we 100% know that he definitely founded it. Also, who do you think founded it? Catholicism wasn't as centralized for the first 500 years of its existence as it is now. (sorry if I formatted wrong, new to talk page discussion), XP6287 (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

southern hemisphere

According to the article:
"Since the 20th century the majority [of Catholics] reside in the southern hemisphere".
I do not doubt that statement since South America and Congo are both the southern hemisphere, two places with large Catholic populations, but is there some source in the article to support this statement? The Sr Guy (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources for Catholic News

While updating the "News Archive" part of Portal:Catholic Church I discovered two links for news.

• (Catholic Culture) 01-01-2009 to Current.

• (Catholic News Agency) 10-07-2003 to Current.

Both of these are useful for finding entries to post Catholic-related entries to "Current events". Sharing these along with an open invitation for editors to help. JoeNMLC (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"Oldest and largest" institution

This article claims in the first paragraph that the Roman Catholic Church is the "oldest and largest" functioning organization, another way of essentially claiming (or at least giving the impression that) it's the oldest branch of Christianity. This, I believe, is biased and doesn't take into account the complexity of the developments in the early church. If we are trying to approach this as neutral then it should be noted that the eastern Orthodox churches are equally as old (though not as large), as the schism in the 11th century was not one church branching off of another, but one church body splitting into new, smaller church bodies (as opposed to the protestant reformation where smaller bodies did branch off of one main body). I would suggest a simple edit of adding the words "one of the" to qualify "oldest." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.154.104.161 (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think the qualifier here is "continuously functioning international institution". -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 03:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2021

The Catholic Church is not a denomination because the church is the original church created by St. Peter aka the first pope. Everyone broke away from the church there is the proof Catholic101 (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Per many sources, no. — IVORK _Talk 05:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of Catholic101, there's a reason we do not describe the Catholic Church as the exclusive Christian church on Wikipedia and instead as a denomination, despite the persuasions you and I might share. Certain Protestant groups–such as Anglicans–describe themselves as having broken from Rome. However, other churches that originate from apostolic sees–such as the Coptic, Eastern Orthodox, and Syriac Churches–all claim continuity from the same decade that the Church of Rome was founded. While you and I value Catholic descriptions of the schisms the Church had with these other groups, on Wikipedia various perspectives are evaluated and reported in a manner that presents this online encyclopedia in as disinterested a party as possible, per the policies of WP:NPOV. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

When referring to sacred Tradition. The T in Tradition should be capitalized. 216.26.121.255 (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: why? I don't think it should be capitalized. You might want to have a read of MOS:CAPS. Volteer1 (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Catholics have two distinct concepts which both use the word tradition; one is capitalized while the other is not to prevent confusion when they are both written out. When spelled with a lowercase 't', tradition basically means common practices that can get passed down. When spelled with an uppercase 'T', also called Sacred Tradition, Tradition means ideas on matters of faith and morals that Catholics must hold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMM12345 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

References

specific instances should spell out "sacred tradition", where the distinction is relevant. –Zfish118^⋉talk 22:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

In the sections describing the very term "Roman Catholic" it is extremely disingenuous to twist the statements into something that is not supported by the sources. We are attempting to discuss the etymology, definition and usage of the term "Roman Catholic" and it does not help if the term is mangled, causing the descriptions to make no sense whatsoever, and failing basic policies like WP:V. Elizium23 (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: What exactly do you mean? The text of the name section has been stable for many years. What is so mangled about it now? Is there a specific edit that you reverted? I simply do not understand your comment. –Zfish118^⋉talk 00:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Zfish118, I don’t think you’re gonna get an answer. Elizium went dark over a month ago and from what sleuthing I’ve done, I think that may be permanent. Sorry. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Holy See location

The current version says: "The church's administration, the Holy See, is in the Vatican City, a tiny enclave of Rome of which the pope is head of state."

But that is inexact. The Holy See is literally in Rome, as the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. There isn't any episcopal see in the Vatican City. The Archbasilica of Saint John Lateran (in Rome) houses the actual cathedra (or "see") of the Roman bishop.

A more accurate version of the text would be: "The church's administration, the Holy See, have sovereignty over the Vatican City, a tiny enclave of Rome of which the pope is head of state." --Grabado (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a legitimate issue. I'd support some statement that make it clear what's going on. I'd be concerned that "have sovereignty over" is a bit vague. It might take several sentences to properly describe this unique situation. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The Catholic Church, often referred to as the Roman Catholic Church, !--Please discuss before removing "Roman Catholic" or making any other changes to the opening sentence. This sentence was decided on after a prolonged process of discussion and consensus.--

@Nillurcheier: the above sentence is not appropriate. "Often referred to" is rather clearly a wp:weasel word that tries to take a hidden editorial stance in Wikipedia's voice about the proper name for the church. "Also known as" is neutral and appropriate; it refers without comment to the citable fact that Roman Catholic Church is a common and frequently used name for the church. I am willing to listen to an argument that "often referred to" isn't trying to say anything, but if it were not trying to imply anything, then why not use "also known as". –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

There appears to be a minor dispute in the wording of the first sentence to this article, wherein Nillurcheier reverted a good-faith edit by Zfish118, citing the note included in the text as justification. However, the wording that Zfirsh118 introduced actually is in conformity with the original verbiage of the agreed-upon first sentence, with this revision altering the language without discussion on 30 December 2019. A further modification of the first sentence, the form which Nillurcheier reverted back to, was introduced on 26 March of this year. I stand with Zfish118 on the edit and believe that we should revert to the earlier "also known as," as this is factually accurate, a longer-standing version of the sentence, and also more standard phrasing when attempting to convey such an idea. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The wording "also known as" was agreed upon about 10 years ago after a formal consensus process by an appointed administrator that lasted some months and involved many editors. At that time this page was named "Roman Catholic Church". The process involved much conflict, especially from those who insisted (incorrectly) that the church itself never calls itself "Roman Catholic". If you go back into the history of this discussion page you will find the discussion and decision. As I recall, part of the consensus decision was that the wording shouldn't be altered again by any editors but only by another formal consensus process. I support the consensus wording as being the best possible for neutrality and factualness and wording that almost everyone can accept or at least live with. So please don't keep on changing the wording. Doing so is only more trouble than it's worth. Anglicanus (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• We should not introduce the name so early on. This reminds me of how in the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints two alternate names, both of which the Church has made repeated requests not be used, are introduced in the opening. The matter of Catholic Church naming is more complex, in part because there has not been a concerted campaign to shape a particular name be used as we see with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but more because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one unified worldwide Church whereas the Catholic Church is in some senses a collection of various Churches practicing different rites or in different geographical areas, that all acknowledge the Pope, but the overall unity is not clear. Thus some people use "Roman Catholic" to dintinguish from various Eastern and Oriental rite Catholics, who are all ultimately part of the same religious body, while we also have the potential need to distingush from members of various Old and Liberal Catholic groups that use Catholic in their name, such as the Polish National Catholic Church and the Polish National Catholic Church in America. If we consider actual size it is pretty clear the Eastern Rites issue is much bigger than the issue of break-away denominations still claiming to be Catholic, even if we realistically count in the later all those who disorderly try to claim they are still part of the Catholic Church even though their actions per the directive of the Catholic Church have removed them. The later most clearly being a reference to those who claim to ordain Womyn priests, those who claim to be womyn priests, and those who frequesnt congregations lead by these alleged womyn priests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to give a sense of size, the Polish National Catholic Church, actually one of the larger break-away Catholic groups, has 26,000 members in 127 congregations. There are over 3,000 dioceses of the Catholic Church, some of which have over 1 million members and hundreds of congregations. There is more confusion or at least deliberate deciption related to this issue than some realize. For example Bishop Accountability which claims to cover the actions of the bishops of the Catholic Church includes in its database at least one action of abuse carried out by a priest of one of these breakaway groups who had never even been a member let alone clergyman in the Catholic Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • In response to "We should not introduce the name so early on" - It is untenable to not immediately note early on that it is "also known as the Roman Catholic Church". I would estimate 90% of Catholic parish churches in the United States today have a sign in the front that says "Roman Catholic" church/parish/community. There are more English speaking parishes in the United States than in almost the rest of the world combined, so the the simple fact that Roman Catholic is a contemporaneously and frequently name use here must noted early on. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox: Structure "Communion"

The infobox entry for structure is "communion" which is wikilinked to Koinonia. The Koinonia article discusses the concept of religious communion/fellowship, but has little to do with the "structure" of the church. I believe the entry for "Episcopal polity" adequately describe the structure of the church, and the "communion" entry adds little value, and should be removed. The communion of the individual churches that constitute the Catholic Church is primarily through the individual leaders of the Episcopate. The Patriarch of an Eastern Catholic Church but pledge his communion and obedience with the Holy See upon appointment for instance. If in the alternative this entry were to be kept, it should be sourced and perhaps an explanatory note added –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead Trimming

The first paragraph introduces a number of complex topics, not all of which are necessarily vital. I propose removing the extra titles of the pope, which are given even before the importance of the office is described.

The pope, who is the Bishop of Rome (and whose titles also include Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor of St. Peter), is the chief pastor of the church,[10] entrusted with the universal Petrine ministry of unity and correction.

The phrase "universal Petrine ministry of unity and correction" is also very complex, and perhaps needs to be made more clear. I'd favor removing it altogether, as the second paragraph already describes the pope as successor of Peter. The piped link of "chief pastor" to "papal supremacy" may need work.

In the second paragraph:

It maintains that it practises the original Christian faith, reserving infallibility, passed down by sacred tradition.[16]

This sentences skims through three distinct topics. I believe there were better versions of this sentence in prior revisions. "original Christian faith" should NOT be piped to the "Catholic Theology" article!

In the third paragraph:

Its teachings include Divine Mercy, sanctification through faith, and evangelisation of the Gospel, as well as Catholic social teaching, which emphasises voluntary support for the sick, the poor, and the afflicted through the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

"sanctification through faith, and evangelisation of the Gospel" are not unique to the Catholic Church, and the are linked to generic articles. These do not seem to illustrate critical aspects. Divine Mercy, while uniquely Catholic, is also shoehorned into an a list of unrelated teachings. The Catholic social teachings are elaborated further, and are appropriate to keep. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Zfish118: for these lead updates/de-cluttering. I've not visited this article in a while & do notice many more wikilinks in the lead section. I remember some time back reading an article (forgot which one) that had "Overlinked" notice. I know it's always a juggling between too few & too many links. Thanks again for these changes. JoeNMLC (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Final sentence of lede

I think it is imperative that we contextualize the Catholic Church as it stands in the present moment in the lede, enabling readers to understand the breadth of impact this body continues to have. For that reason, including the relevant modern criticisms of the Catholic Church (and its associate members, theologies, etc.) is a valuable part of the lede and absolutely suitable as the final sentence. However, I think it would be wise also to recognize the relevant modern praises of the Catholic Church in a clause of this same sentence, perhaps something brief like, "while the Catholic Church has contemporaneously also been praised for its advocacy of peace, human rights and environmentalism" with the relevant sourcing appended. Please discuss as I think it is important that we contextualize the Catholic Church as an entity not exclusively facing criticism by modern popular society but also degrees of acceptance and lauding. If nobody objects over the next week I'll just add it essentially as transcribed above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I have concerns, and I do not think such content would be appropriate for the lead. The last sentence already follows a rather praiseful paragraph:

Catholic social teaching emphasises voluntary support for the sick, the poor, and the afflicted through the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. The Catholic Church operates thousands of Catholic schools, hospitals, and orphanages around the world, and is the largest non-government provider of education and health care in the world.[21] Among its other social services are numerous charitable and humanitarian organisations.

Both the above paragraph and the final sentence you cite are supported by substantial content in the body of the article. Any sentence that attempted to "counter-balance" this criticism with statements of praise would need similar development in the article. Criticism of the church is a notable topic, already the subject of its own article; there is simply not similar to notability to statements of praise for the church. Even where some might praise the church, others might criticize the church on the very same matter. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

After reading above discussion, and re-reading parts of the article, here are my thoughts.

1. Even though lede is quite long & does summarize the article, the lede closing might include something about current events. So I looked at "21st century" section.
2.  Question: - can / should lede final sentence be something like the following?

In 2013, Pope Francis who succeeded Pope Benedict XVI, became the first pope from the Americas, and the first from the Southern Hemisphere.

JoeNMLC (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The pope is already discussed at length at the top of the lead; any info about the incumbent pope should be added there. As you note, the lead is already long so such additions should very limited. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Life site news

Life site news is a deprecated and unreliable source. It is only reliable for the opinion of life site news itself. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_268#RfC:_LifeSiteNews)

Since the addition of a better source for the opinion of the catholic church (the USSCB), it should be removed.

Forgot to sign--2A02:1810:BC04:4B00:50F3:D47B:F97F:C82A (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

With regard to this edit, only LSN addresses the specific claim "for this reason", linking abortion and IVF technologies. The sentence/paragraph will have to be revised, or another source added (such as the Vatican statement in the LSN article), before the LSN citation can be removed. –Zfish118^⋉talk 13:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of 'Church'

In this specific article, nearly every use of the word 'church' is a reference to the (Roman) Catholic Church as an entity and organization, which of course are proper nouns. In other words, 'church' as a simplified phrase is a metanym for the full title. Thus, I would like to, where appropriate, capitalize all instances into 'Church' (where the antecedent is, again, the institution). Please confirm so that I can do this because this is a well-refereed article. Thnx! Gobucks821 (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This has come up on other talk pages and here, most recently here. There's probably a few more instances in the archive. Per MOS:INSTITUTIONS, "Generic words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them (university, college, hospital, church, high school) do not take capitals." This decision is, in part, to maintain NPOV across all churches - there are many churches that claim to be the "one true church" which also capitalize the metanym "Church" for their full title in their publications. If we allow it for one, we have to allow it for all - or we don't do it for any, which is what the current MOS reflects. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the last comment. In the same way that on Wikipedia we don't capitalise "university" by itself just because many universities do so when referring to their own institution, we shouldn't capitalise "church" by itself either. Exactly the same principle applies. Anglicanus (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that MOS would suggest that "church" ought to be lowercase by the standards currently employed by this Wiki (as well as many papers of record and academic sources). However, wherever possible, replacing "Church" with "Catholic Church" might be preferable, as often a lowercase "c" "church" can be conflated with either a national/sui iuris church or, more commonly, a parish or building. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

An old version hidden for 10 years

I just found out Talk:Catholic Church/Old history section (June 2011) existed due to @Zfish118: having put an old version of part of the page in 2011. What should be done with it? Veverve (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect info - largest denomination

Sunni Islam is the largest religious denomination, not Catholicism. 98.13.43.216 (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide an updated date source documenting the current order of largest denominations, and I or someone will make the edit. –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

The Catholic Church is, by all accounts, NOT the same as a the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is one of the Churches within the Catholic Church. It would be absurd, incorrect, and poor scholarship for an Eastern Catholic, say a Maronite, to describe themselves as Roman Catholic. Let me explain a little more clearly: a Roman Catholic and a Maronite Catholic both identify with two key components. The first is their local, sui juris, church. For the Roman Catholic, this is Rome; for the Maronite Catholic, this is Lebanon. The second is THE Catholic Church, of which both identify equally. Calling, as this article does "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church..." is, quite frankly, stupid. That is like saying "The Catholic Church, also known as the Byzantine Catholic Church..." (or Maronite or any of the other sui juris churches). Better yet, its like saying "The Christian Church, also known as the Catholic Church...": no one would make that claim simply because they are the largest denomination.

I propose changing the opening sentence to "The Catholic Church, most commonly the Roman Catholic Church..." and changing the rest of the article to reflect this very important difference (that is, unnecessarily and incorrectly adding the adjective Roman before Catholic).

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term). Specifically the opening section: "From the 17th century, "Roman Catholic Church" has been used as a synonym for the Catholic Church by some Anglicans and other Protestants in English-speaking countries.[4]" The Anglicans do not dictate Catholic terminology.

INFOWeather1 (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@INFOWeather1: Technically, you are incorrect. There is, indeed, no such thing as the "Roman Catholic Church" from an official terminology standpoint. You refer to the Latin Church as the true "Roman Catholic Church" (which itself is an erroneous name for the Latin Church) and rightly identify it as a component church, one of the 24 sui iuris churches within the Catholic Church. However, the term "Roman Catholic" is frequently applied to individuals in full communion with the Catholic Church, regardless of their affiliation with the Latin or various Eastern Churches. This matter of conversation has been litigated at length many, many times before on this page and, barring major linguistic changes, will likely not see a change in consensus.

"Roman Catholic" is also a term occasionally used, albeit technically incorrectly, by the Catholic Church to refer to itself in whole (particularly in ecumenical dialogues). Your last point is invalid insofar as many Catholics in both the English- and non-English-speaking world do use this term, as do academics, papers of record, and numerous other reliable sources. While I might resist the occasion of correcting my Maronite friends from distinguishing themselves from the "Romans" when instead they ought to say "Latins," for the average person reading the article, inclusion of the phrase "Roman Catholic" in the lede helps assert that they are indeed on the page dealing with the ecclesiastical Christian body in communion with the Pope of Rome. There are other instances where removing "Roman Catholic" is appropriate, but this is not one of them.

As a final little postscript, I would add that some Melkites, deriving from their usage of the term "Roman" to denote "Byzantine" in Hellenized Arabic, occasional call themselves "Roman Catholics" (but don't bring this up or you will cause a whole scuffle with no end in sight). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As an additional note, "most commonly" does little to clarify the matter further and is indeed a presumption Wikipedia can not make without a reliable source that definitively says "The Catholic Church is most commonly referred to as the 'Roman Catholic Church.'" Such a source itself would, without the relevant detail and supporting evidence, likely face intense scrutiny. Additionally, the article itself does a decent job of explaining the nature of the sui iuris churches and the page on the term "Roman Catholic" that you cite does a decent job covering the history and deployment of that term. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I would go further and say there nothing incorrect about using the term "Roman Catholic". One need only look almost any church building and read "Roman Catholic Church" on the front sign. Wikipedia takes no stance on such matters; the organization itself goes by the name "Roman Catholic" in certain instances, and thus it should be listed as an alternative name in the lead. –Zfish118^⋉talk 20:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"Christian - Catholic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Christian - Catholic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#Christian - Catholic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

Please remove the claim that the Catholic Church is "also known as the Roman Catholic Church" and replace it with "incorrectly referred to as the Roman Catholic Church" Grootdawid (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done @Grootdawid: see Roman Catholic (term). Veverve (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: I noticed that, perhaps in response to this request for edit made by Grootdawid you appended an in-text referral to the article Roman Catholic (term). While I do think some form of clarification in needed in the lede, the language of the lede was something hashed out rather extensively some time ago and recently relitigated. I would perhaps then suggest the introduction of a note that directs individuals to this term rather than an in-text reference. While I agree with your intent, I have introduced such a note. If you feel this is not an appropriate solution, I'm more than willing to reopen this discussion again (though understand if other editors disagree and wish to retain the previous consensus lede unmolested). ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems unnecessary, as the very first section of the article (Catholic Church#Name) discusses discusses this subject and provides a link to the article Roman Catholic (term). A footnote providing a bare link to another article doesn't seem to offer any clarity to reader. –Zfish118^⋉talk 22:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think a note is not a bad idea (given I was the one who added it) but agree that it is either insufficient or unnecessary as it was. Would you be willing to work to has out a new solution or are you fine with the current arrangement? ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any ambiguity requiring an explanatory note. The casual reader just wants to know they are on the correct article, whether they originally searched for "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church". Both names are clearly warranted in the lead by all applicable Wikipedia policies. Since both names are publicly used by the church and individual parishes, any suggestion that one name is more appropriate than the other violates neutral point of view. The explanatory note, in my mind, comes uncomfortably close to favoring one name over the other in Wikipedia's voice. –Zfish118^⋉talk 22:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Who

Has access to edit this, some information is outdated. - Arcangel Mical 2600:8800:2219:100:144E:9E31:25AD:F9D3 (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You can make an edit request and people who can edit the article may oblige depending on the request. Veverve (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022

Agomez368 (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to fix this damn article

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, please maintain civility. casualdejekyll 13:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Term Roman catholic

This term is often used as synonym with Latin Church (especially in other languages where the Greek Catholic church is more important) and it should be noted there. 78.80.25.82 (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Would prefer better sourcing and perhaps someone rework my phrasing to align with the reality that "Roman Catholic" is not the preferred term for the Latin Church. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2022

Hi, this claims its the oldest church and was found in holy land. Those are both self claimed. No evidence backs that up and the line of catholic church broke from the orthodox church after the great schism. Before that the Pope was just the top Bishops or patriarch out of 5. Let keep it real guys. 2600:1700:8720:9310:6801:6DF8:3ACA:D24 (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Latinisation

I believe the heading of Eastern Rites should include mention of theological Latinisation. According to 'New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law' by John P. Beal et al. (2000) the Church document 'Sacrosanctum Concilium' (1963) encourages Eastern Catholic Churches to correct theological Latinisations by returning to authentic Eastern theology. An example is the Maronite Church, which Bryan D. Spinks claims in his book 'Do this in Remembrance of Me' – had a "Western theology and mentality imposed upon its rite" (p. 170). Maronite98 (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you, Maronite98. I have a few other sources that can be mustered to this end to reflect the continuous discussion of this matter for about a century. If you want to put together a rejigged phrasing of those passages with the sourcing you provided, I can append information from my material as relevant. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Page Move Discussion: "Society of Jesus" to "Jesuits"

A page move discussion has been opened at Talk:Society of Jesus#Requested move 31 July 2022 –Zfish118^⋉talk 00:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2022

Fix the spelling of the word civilisation to civilization in the first paragraph 2603:8080:601:EB00:705A:F82B:C72:9207 (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:ENGVAR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The article uses British spelling. The spelling with an "s" is correct. –Zfish118^⋉talk — Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 5 August 2022

Lead link to particular churches

@Fabius Planciades Fulgentius: and @Pbritti:, I prefer the current version, last restored by Pbritti (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titleCatholic_Churc=h&type=revision&diff=1107566810&oldid=1107557860); it is best to link to the particular churches article, rather than the subsection of the same article. –Zfish118^⋉talk 13:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Zfish118. I think it's a question open to reasonable disagreement, but also encourages me to finally get around to giving that page a facelift (and a quasi-spinoff). ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Usage of the term "Catholic Church" for the "Roman Catholic Church"

I believe that using the title "Catholic Church" to the Roman Church is Subjective. I believe it is subjective because it pertains that the Roman Church is the "Whole" of the Catholic Church. Which we all know is not. Pertaining the Roman Church to be the wholeness of the Catholic Church is like excluding the Orthodox churches and the 7 churches in John's Revelation to be not part of the Catholic church.

As stated in [rite Catholic, there is no reason to name the Roman Catholic Church as the whole of Catholicity because the Roman Church itself isn't the whole catholic church.Ploreky (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ploreky: Clearly some confusion here. Certainly, many churches, denominations, and groups claim catholicity. I would encourage you to read more clearly regarding the Latin Church, a component church of what this article is about, the Catholic Church. The article is titled as such after years of debate and review of WP:COMMONNAME procedure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your explanation but this is not confusion. The Catholic Church is supposed to be contained of different churches. It shouldn't be only consisted of the roman Church. I mean, if your trying to say that the Roman Church is the "One and Only" "Catholic Church", well that's false. I mean, at least include the 7 original catholic churches.

Saying that rome is the "only Catholic church" is 100% misleading.

I am not including the diverse churches, denominations, etc. I am only talking abou how unfair it is for the other original catholic churches Ploreky (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ploreky, you're not making a whole lot of sense. You haven't actually named any other real, extant or historical Churches which claim the name "Catholic". The 7 Churches in Revelation were real particular Churches, most likely headed by an overseer or presbyters, which were key components of the nascent Catholic Church and in continuity with that historical development. Your English phrasing doesn't seem great and you don't seem to have a good grasp of the terminology we commonly use in English. I'm not even sure where we've claimed that "Rome is the only Catholic church" -- that would be counter to Wikipedia's aims and a glaring mistake, so I'd be pleased if you pointed out where we've claimed such a thing in an article. Elizium23 (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. What I am trying to say is that, calling the Catholic Church as "Roman Catholic Church" or saying that it is also known as "Roman Catholic Church" is misleading. Since, as stated in Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) with Latin Church combined, Roman Catholicism is stated clearly in these articles that it is a "Part of the Catholic Church" and not stated as the "Catholic Church" itself. Ploreky (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read Roman Catholic (term). The term itself is widely used and has disparate interpretations. The Church calls herself Roman Catholic in many instances: for example, my own diocese identifies as the "Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix". The whole communion (24 Churches) is sometimes referred as "Roman Catholic" by those within as well as without: for example, Anglicans distinguish the Roman Catholics from the Anglo-Catholics in this way by denoting the governance from Rome instead of England.

On Wikipedia, we often use "Roman Catholic" to distinguish Latin Church structures from the Eastern Catholic Churches counterparts, such as the Byzantine Catholic Church or the Maronite Church; Eastern Catholics often bristle at being called "Roman Catholic". Wikipedia especially upholds this distinction in our category structures, where you will find plenty of parallel trees for EC categories. On the other hand, many Catholic editors (such as @Natemup) object to our use of "Roman Catholic" and will change it to "Catholic Church" instead, which is fine, but IMHO loses distinct information such as a person or thing being of the Latin Church rather than Eastern Catholic.

"Roman Catholic" was for centuries considered derogatory and a slur, used by the English to denigrate subjects of the Pope, but it has widely been rehabilitated and embraced. Ploreky, you'll just have to accept that the term "Roman Catholic" means many things to many people, is used to mean different things in different contexts, especially here on Wikipedia, and there have been pages and pages of prior discussion on this topic; I suggest you dig into those old discussions and see what others have to say before attempting to make the same points over and over again here. Elizium23 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, I object only to the use of the term on here in reference to the whole Catholic Church or in reference generically to a Catholic. The restricted colloquial usage should not be our go-to, in my opinion. Very rarely is it used to denote "Latin Catholic" in our articles. Moreover, a great many pages include the term only because, at the time the edit was made, this page was still titled "Roman Catholic Church". natemup (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Well heck, that opinion is subjective. That disregards other churches belonging in the Catholic Church. If you're true to what you're saying, then this is false? Pope and patriarchs in the Catholic Church? Heck, if we'll be following your biased POV then all of the list should just be filled up with pope Francis' name then. You're disregarding the other catholic churches by using this term! Ploreky (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I propose that this page (or atleast any topic that only correlates to the Roman Catholic Church) be moved to the Latin Church. Ploreky (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality

I believe that there are some paragraphs in this article that does not show neutrality of the Catholic Church, or rather the Christian Church, as a whole. Example of which is "The Catholic Church shared a communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church..." the main issue with this sentence is because it disregards the churches that the Eastern Orthodoxy is made of. In this sentence, and many other, distinguishes the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole church instead of a Ecumenical community consisting of Various Churches. Many paragraph in this article also points out that the Roman Church was the particular "victim" and "hero" in the Christian World. Ploreky (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ploreky: You are welcome to suggest revised versions and raise more specific concerns. Unfortunately, your comment is too open-ended to afford your fellow editors a means to engage with you fruitfully. If you could suggest some alterations and sources that correspond with them, we could absolutely work with you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

When searching the church founding date the results show the date of the great Schism, that is not a founding date. Change the founding year from 1054 B.C. to 33 A.D. to fit within the traditional dates of the Churches founding. 2600:8800:6182:2100:C5CD:C7C4:7B0C:5E3E (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Founding date does not appear to be stated as either in the article. You are welcome to request with a more specific phrase you wish to be changed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2022

Instances of "bishop" when stating the title "bishop of Rome" need to be changed to "Bishop". Instances of "pope" need to be changed to "Pope". Instances of "church" when referencing the Catholic Church as "The church" need to be changed to "Church". Jpkenney2187 (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia treats all such titles of offices as lowercase. This is true for all religious articles and for other offices (eg prime minister, president). Only when we talk about an actual person does it get capitals. Eg Pope John Paul II was a pope.  Stepho  talk  07:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done See MOS:ISMCAPS for more info. --Jahaza (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, purely from a grammatical standpoint. As these instances are a title, they are also a proper noun and thus should be capitalized. "Bishop of Rome" as an example is a title referring to a person, despite it being non-specific and is a proper noun. "Prime Minister" in your example should also be capitalized as a title referring to a person and is also a proper noun. Jpkenney2187 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jpkenney2187: This matter has been discussed and resolved in favor of the current version of the article. See MOS:POPES. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Prime minister is handled the same way. "Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sent troops to the Falklands." "Margaret Thatcher was prime minister when Argentina invaded the Falklands." Jahaza (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Origin

The origin of the RCC is not Jesus Christ, 1st century. Their founder was Emperor Constantine in 329. RCC do not baptize through immersion. They sprinkle. 47.27.45.235 (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, mate, many of us are aware of the calumnies begun by Evangelicals. In fact, the moment after I received Confirmation, a filthy vagrant dragged me around the corner to lecture me on the glories of baptism by immersion and accuse me of being unbaptized. However, this page is not a forum for us to discuss such polemics; how do you propose, using reliable secondary sources to improve the article's coverage of the origins of the Catholic Church? Elizium23 (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Explanations

@Robert P. O'Shea, please allow the reader to click through a wikilink to learn more about a given term rather than adding parenthetical, inaccurate explanations to the running prose. This is why Wikis were invented, to define intermediate terms by hyper-linking to them rather than spelling it out, over and over in each place. Elizium23 (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You make a good point. But many Wikipedia articles I have seen are largely incomprehensible to ordinary readers, by using terms that are of very low frequency. For example, see https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=baptize%2Ceparchies%2Csui+iuris%2Cmagisterium&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3 for the cases of one word of reasonable frequency (baptize--note spelling) and the three I felt needed to be explained (about 100, 50, and 5 times less frequent). And often, clicking on links sends an ordinary reader into an endless pursuit of more links to find something that is comprehensible; the reader might never get back to the primary article. And in each case, I took prose gleaned only from the linked articles, although I concede in the case of "magisterium" I might not have done the best job. Just saying!

Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"As the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution"

Isn't this a violation of NPOV — especially in relation to the topic of Orthodox Christianity — as it implicitly implies that the Catholic Church is the true successor of the Great Church?

Whether there was anything resembling an early papacy remains heavily, heavily disputed among scholars.

There's been previous complaints about the wording of this sentence. And I honestly think it's too contentious of an assertation to remain within the article. KlayCax (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No. But I don't think you would understand how sourcing works. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the hostility is from. (Or why you linked that edit. The notion that the Confederacy was a Herrenvolk democracy was sourced.) KlayCax (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a good case for Orthodoxy and ACOE sharing the "oldest continuous institution" sort of badge but as Pbritti said, we need sources or it didn't happen. Elizium23 (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Surely the Buddhist sangha is older?Achar Sva (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there's multiple sources which state that.

The Buddhist monastic Order (sangha) has a claim to be the world's oldest and most widespread continuous social institution. This isn't to mention the problem with asserting that the Catholic Church is in continuity with the Great Church while the Orthodox Church is not. The sentence inherently has massive POV issues. KlayCax (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Achvar Sva: @Pbritti: @Elizium23:" The Buddhist monastic sangha is probably the world's oldest surviving institution...

Is stated on p. 40 of British Buddhism: Teachings, Practice and Development (2006), published by Taylor & Francis.

Other reliable sources make similar statements. Even assuming the Catholic Church is the direct and continuous descendent of the Great Church (Or even further back: the original Christian Church) — an extensively disputed and controversial claim in its own right — there's multiple institutions which predate ~30 AD. KlayCax (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be a misreading of statement in this article (specifically the modifier "international") and contrasting it wrongly with the monastic order discussed in the book and quote provided. The monastic order discussed above is identified by reliable sources as a likely candidate for the oldest surviving institution; I would tend to agree. However, unlike the Catholic Church, it is not sourced as being older in terms of international operation. While this might seem like a trivial or even misleading distinction, it's what distinguishes source's claim regarding the Catholic Church from the valid one made by the older—but for a long time localized—sangha. If you can find a source describing the sangha or another body as operating coherently and transnationally before 33 AD, you'll be cooking with gas. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The sangha was international from its inception, seeing that India at the time was made up of thousands of tiny kingdoms. The Christian churches (note the plural - there was not then, and is not now, a single church) on the other hand were limited to the Roman empire for the first century or more. Achar Sva (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Saying that the Roman Empire was not international is the same as saying that the British Empire circa 1900 was not international. Both were made up of smaller states, with their own leaders, that also gave allegiance to the Empire. But I do agree that the Christian churches were mostly independent.  Stepho  talk  05:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: Not only is Stepho-wrs correct, but your assertion is unsupported by sourcing. Additionally, your assertion that the Catholic Church was bound to the Roman Empire demonstrates a detachment from history. Christianity is attested as extant outside the Roman Empire before the conclusion of the first century and the claim that Christian ecclesiology had no single multinational church is openly questionable. Once again, you must source your statements, as there are sources that openly contradict your claims. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

We have to focus on the article, and it's a fact that the claim made in the article that the Catholic church is "the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution" is highly problematic. The Buddhist sangha, for example, is clearly older (and was :international" by any measure); The Hindu priesthood is also older, equally "international", and institutional. The statement really can't be supported. For that matter, the early church, prior to about the 3rd century, wasn't the Catholic Church that later evolved - no popes until about then, for one thing (no Peter was not the first pope, and probably didn't die in Rome).Achar Sva (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Fun opinion—go source it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you think Peter died in Rome? Try proving that one! (It comes from 1 Peter which was written in Rome, but 1 Peter isn't actually by Peter - not unless he somehow and suddenly leared to write better Greek than Paul and adopted all of Paul's theology). But this talk page is about improvements to the article, which is on the Catholic Church. The statement that the church is the oldest etc etc is reliably sourced, but frankly strains credulity - too many competitors. It would be true if restricted to Europe and if the Eastern churches were somehow to be hived off, but neither of those is possible. It's not essential to the article *ultimately, does it matter whether this institution is the oldest or the largest or some other superlative?), and the article would be improved by simply dropping it. Achar Sva (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum for discussion of such things and so I'd ask you to please stay on the topic of article improvement. We have a source for the claim currently in the article. If you'd like to discredit the source, supersede it with superior sources, or whatever, feel free, but don't start down this WP:OR path, OK? Elizium23 (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying: the claim that the Catholic Church is the oldest/largest/anythingest is both questionable and superfluous. Readers immediately start saying to themselves, "What about (the Buddhist Sangha, the Japanese imperial family, the....") Better just to drop it. Achar Sva (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Since there is a reliable secondary source to support this claim, then we have to resolve the conflict between sources. Your claim is demonstrably false in the continuing presence of this source. The claims of other reliable sources are acceptable evidence that the claim about the Catholic Church may not be exclusive and those claims bear examination, but not your WP:OR. Elizium23 (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not my opinion - p. 40 of British Buddhism: Teachings, Practice and Development (2006), published by Taylor & Francis, says that "The Buddhist monastic sangha is probably the world's oldest surviving institution..." Perhaps we should mention this in the article, for balance? Achar Sva (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: "If you can find a source describing the sangha or another body as operating coherently and transnationally before 33 AD, you'll be cooking with gas"

It was the rain of Azoka [276-232BC] which inaugurated the third great stage in the life of the sangha, a stage which involved the expansion of Buddhism into vast areas of Central and Southern Asia. This expansion was achieved by an organised missionary effort of the sangha allied to the support and encouragement of kings and rulers, especially Asoka himself. The Asokan edicts describe how he acehived dhamma-vijaya, or conquest by dhamma, in a number of countries including possibly Greece and Ceylon.

— Young, D. N. de L. (September 1970). "The Sangha in Buddhist History". Religious Studies. 6 (3). Cambridge University Press.

Seems pretty explicit. Can we get rid of this obviously problematic statement now? TSP (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@TSP: You found a very reliable source which seems to do the trick for placing sangha as extant internationally earlier (though this fact vis-à-vis the sourced claim in the article is actually implicit rather than "explicit"). This means that we now have a disputed claim between multiple entities, so I'll suggest a rewritten sentence: "As the largest and one of the oldest" replacing "As the world's oldest and largest". This seems to address any disputes about which is the oldest while maintaining proximity to the source. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The UN is the largest international institution in the world...

— Galbreath, David (2008). "International Regimes and Organizations". In Imber, Mark F; Salmon, Trevor C (eds.). Issues in International Relations. Taylor & Francis. p. 129.

TSP (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you proposing an edit? If so, you are welcome to contribute a suggestion! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The edit should be the addition of this sentence, or something like it, to the existing statement: "...a;though the Buddhist Sangha is older and the United Nations is larger." (with sources). Or else just delete the existing sentence. Achar Sva (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I call bullshit on the UN claim. First of all the source doesn't qualify it like our claim does: largest international continuously-functioning institution. Secondly, is the UN's size counted as all citizens of all its member nations? That's a bullshit number -- those citizens have no real voice or function in the United Nation's operations. Elizium23 (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Now you're performing WP:SYNTH. You have no source that mentions the Church, the sangha, and the UN all in one, and you're doing WP:SYNTH. Stop now. Elizium23 (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The correct solution, seen as both halves of this statement are clearly heavily disputed by other sources, would be simply to remove it. Any hedging would be too much complexity for the lead. If we wanted a discussion of this claim, that could be elsewhere in the article. TSP (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I object and oppose removal. Why would you remove something that is cited to a reliable secondary source? Nobody has produced a reliable source to dispute it, only your WP:OR and WP:SYNTH say-sos. That's not enough. Elizium23 (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a wild overreading of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

You're arguing that, if someone publishes one article saying "Bob Smith is the tallest man in the world", and 50 other people have published books saying "Fred Jones is the tallest man in the world", we would be obliged to state as undisputed fact on Bob Smith's page "Bob Smith is the tallest man in the world", unless someone has written an article specifically saying "Bob Smith is not the tallest man in the world"? And presumably we'd also say on Fred Jones' page that he is?

(We actually already have a Wikipedia page - World government - that says, in a stable sourced statement, "the United Nations (UN) ... is by far the largest and most powerful international institution".)

Multiple reliable sources have been produced saying that other international institutions are respectively the largest, and the oldest, in the world. I really don't see how we could justify stating in wikivoice, in the lede, that this one is (and contradicting that elsewhere on the wiki).

WP:SYNTH is a policy limiting inclusion, not limiting exclusion. A more relevant policy here is WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Different reliable sources have stated different views on which are the largest and oldest international institutions in the world; therefore it is a breach of policy to present the view of one of these sources as fact. TSP (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It's worth bearing in mind that the Catholic Church is merely one branch of the Christian church, and that all those branches are of equal age. Achar Sva (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is not a forum and you need to source that sort of statement. In any case, that is a blatantly inaccurate statement—particularly in the context of your previously stated position that there were a number of Christian churches—so I'm unsurprised that you neglected to source it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is not a forum and you need to source that sort of statement. In any case, that is a blatantly inaccurate statement—particularly in the context of your previously stated position that there was a number of Christian churches—so I'm unsurprised that you neglected to source it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"It's not really accurate to say that the Roman Catholic church is older than the Orthodox church. It's more accurate to say that Western (Latin) and Eastern (Greek) theologians and church leaders had different opinions on a range of matters from at least the second century. There were differences of opinion within these two broad camps as well, but in general, Eastern fathers were more speculative while Western fathers were more practical. Key early debates centered on Christology and whether Rome or Constantinople could claim supremacy in Christendom. We see the two "sides" lining up against each other at the Council of Nicea (325) and the Council of Chalcedon (451), as well as in other ways."

— Elesha Coffman, Professor at Baylor University KlayCax (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

We've been over the reasons a statement like this constitutes WP:SYNTH in this context (despite the merit the professor's statement plainly has). This discussion is just going in circles. Propose a sourced edit that respects the already present sources that explicitly state otherwise or accept the current lede. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

To most western-hemisphere Protestants, the Eastern Orthodox Church—despite so many media-hyped millennium celebrations revolving around it—is still very much a mysterious unknown, a phenomenon almost altogether outside their experience. So let us take a short comparison-and-contrast journey into what is the oldest continuous Christian tradition in the world.

— Alexander Melnyk

A multitude of other sources make similar statements. @Pbritti: @Achar Sva: KlayCax (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I remind you that before the schism of 1054 the Catholic Church was only one. Now both the Orthodox Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church can be considered the oldest Christian churches, since before they were one. So much so that the Orthodox consider the seven ecumenical councils valid and still maintain the apostolic succession. A single Catholic Church in five great patriarchates. Before the schism there were five great patriarchates: the patriarchate of Rome, the patriarchate of Antioch, the patriarchate of Jerusalem, the patriarchate of Constantinople, and the patriarchate of Alexandria. Until the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the others, decided to break with the Patriarchate of Rome, and this is what we call the Orthodox Church.Rafaelosornio (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Alternative Phrasings

OK, can we reset this debate a little, as we seem to keep getting into minutiae and losing the core point?

As far as I can see the point is pretty clear:

• There are reliable sources that describe other international institutions as older (e.g. the Buddhist sangha)
• There are reliable sources that describe other international institutions as larger (e.g. the UN)
• There are reliable sources that describe other Christian traditions as older or equally old, i.e. refute the implication that the Catholic Church alone is the successor of the Great Church

Therefore, per WP:NPOV (All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic), I do not believe we can retain a statement which is contradicted by at least some reliable sources.

This is not WP:SYNTH. WP:SYNTH says that you can't use sources that do not mention a given topic as sources for content in that topic's article. That does not mean that individual articles each have their own set of truth - if we have some articles that say "X is the tallest man in the world" (without mentioning Y), and others that say "Y is the tallest man in the world" (without mentioning X), it doesn't mean we put those two contradictory statements as undisputed fact on those subjects' own Wikipedia pages. Per WP:NPOV, all encyclopedic content must represent the significant views on the topic.

Therefore, in my view it's pretty clear that this statement can't stay.

Alternatives:

• [V1] As I proposed above, simply remove it entirely
• [V2] Hedge extensively, e.g. "As one of the oldest and largest international institutions"

Thoughts? TSP (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with "As one of the oldest and largest international institutions" --Rafaelosornio (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I can agree with the "one of" hedged wording, particularly because we can directly source that. I think it acknowledges that the claim is reasonably disputed and does so without relying on information wholly exterior to the subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• I tend to support the "hedging" text, but disagree with that characterization. I simply don't think the current phrasing of the statement under dispute is adequately sourced. The current phrasing relies on three sources, the two immediately available do not support the clause as a whole. The current phrasing is:

As the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution, it has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilization.

There are three sources for "As the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution", however, I do not have access to S1. Examining the exact text of the others:

• [S2]: "The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the modern world"
• [S3]: "The oldest institution on Earth, the Roman Catholic Church, sustains a far flung flock..."

The "oldest institution" portion of the sentence is thus well sourced. The claim, "largest continuously functioning international institutions", however, is not well sourced (unless this specific claim is contained in S1). The combined claim, "oldest and largest..." also seems synthetic to me, unless again this exact claim is made in S1. S1 would be sole source for the combined claim, and would need to be of very high quality to support it. Does someone have access to provide an exact quote from this source (Mark A. Nollm 2009)? Further, reviewing Elizium23's sources below all repeat "oldest" but NOT the "largest continuously functioning..." claim. It is thus my opinion that exact quote from S1 would have to be particularly strong and obviously based on solid research for the current phrasing to stand. I would thus be more comfortable with phrasing to the effect as proposed below:

• V3: "It is the oldest and among the largest international institutions in the world, and has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilization^{[S 1][S 2][S 3]}" OR
• V4: "It is among the oldest and largest international institutions in the world,... similar to what was expressed above.

Either the original V2, or my V3 and V4 phrasings accurately reflect the sources. –Zfish118^⋉talk 01:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Both V3 and V4 read as appropriately sourced and accurate. I defer to V4 for the sake of better accommodating those who disagree on merit with the Catholic Church's claim to being the oldest international organization. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy with V1, V2 or V4 - I don't think V3 is justifiable due to both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Buddhist Sangha issues, but there's no need to relitigate that if we're all happy with V4. TSP (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with V4. KlayCax (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead paragraph updated with "V4" text. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources

1. "The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the Western world."
2. "The oldest institution on earth, the Roman Catholic Church..."
3. "The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the modern world."
4. "The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in human history ... after almost two millennia."
5. "The Catholic Church is one of the world's oldest continuing institutions and traces its roots back to St Peter..." Elizium23 (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Zfish Sources S1, S2, S3

"Catholics not in communion with Rome" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Catholics not in communion with Rome and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Catholics not in communion with Rome until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"Catholicism." listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Catholicism. and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Catholicism. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Specifically "Catholicism." with a period in the redirect title. –Zfish118^⋉talk 23:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

No landing origin for reference# 8

I need some assistance regarding refference# 8. As per Wikipedia legacy every refference drop us to its origin. But in this refference there is no landing page here. I want full explanation on this refference or please make it a hyperlink to its origin Recluse Owl (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "landing page"? This is an offline reference. It probably does not exist online. That is something you must deal with. Wikipedia accepts and embraces all reliably-published sources, even those that are not accessible on the Web. Elizium23 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Recluse Owl: If you are referring to the book cited in the first paragraph of the lede, The New Shape of World Christianity, you have already been provided a clear source. References to books do not require links, particularly when no internet-accessible version of the text exists. If you would like me to parse it out more clearly for you, you may reply below with a more clear request. Also, typically, demanding "a full explanation" is poor etiquette. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti the note "a full explanation" as I used is only for some more information on it. I was not knowing that Wikipedia also welcome offline reference. However there is an article on Kumbha Mela that regards to Indian culture. Wikipedia article about it states that it is way more older than Christ. Also I wanted to know more about the meaning of "continuesly functioning international institution". I'm just curious about these two things. Don't took it any way in a wrong manner or etiquette. Hope you will help Recluse Owl (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Recluse Owl perhaps you would find help at one of the reference desks, such as WP:RD/H (Humanities) or WP:Teahouse which welcomes newcomers and beginners. It's a little odd to come into an article talk with a very specific question about one reference as your very first edit. I hope that you are here to improve articles. Please check out the two spaces I linked you to for some extra support as you find your bearings. Elizium23 (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

If you are trying to claim that Kumbh Mela is an older continuously-functioning institution than Christianity, it does not take long reading the referenced article to see that that is a Hindu folk belief and not backed up by historical evidence or scholarship. Kumbh Mela originates somewhere in the 18th-19th century AD. Elizium23 (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elizium23 Now i get that. Thnx for your assistance. Recluse Owl (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I would also say that if you came here for more information on why we believe that the Church is the oldest continuously functioning international institution, I can understand why you were disappointed by a single offline reference. This claim is an extraordinary claim and it's grandiose as well. I would say that this article would be better if the claim could be traced to at least 3 high-quality references. I have no doubt that dozens of such references could be located. I hope we can take this as impetus for improving this reference and bolstering the claim as it is. Elizium23 (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused and not for the first time, by the increasingly arcane rules that are developing on Wikipedia. If I have understood you correctly references to literary sources whose texts to do appear on the internet are not necessary. Is there such a rule? This is contrary to the rules of fifteen years ago when I first started writing articles. In the case of this topic that means not citing correctly over nineteen hundred years of possible sources in favour of internet sources of just twenty years. Dorkinglad (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dorkinglad: I think there is a language barrier, and some misunderstanding of the original question asked here. To answer your question, there is no requirement that a reliably published source must be accessible online. Links to web versions are nice when they exist, but have never been required. Recluse Owl's question about the claim "continuously functioning international institution" has also been further discussed below on this talk page. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm very grateful for your explanation which dissipates my confusion. Keep up the excellent work. Dorkinglad (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Recluse Owl:: Elizium23 is correct. Please refer any further questions to my talk page and I can see what I can do to help you get started on your account. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The Catholic Church article is just not only the Christianization of the Roman Empire

About the recent description of the article, it says the following:

"Historiography of Christianization of the Roman Empire"

This was just a part of the history of the Christianity and it only understands a part of the history, but it does not understand the whole history of the Catholic Church. Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"Iglesia Catolica Apostolica Romana" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Iglesia Catolica Apostolica Romana has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 14 § Iglesia Catolica Apostolica Romana until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

"Kathuliki" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kathuliki has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 14 § Kathuliki until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Oxford English Spelling

An IP editor suggested specifying "Oxford English" spelling conventions rather than generic British spelling. Which is correct for this article? –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears to already be at least partially to the Oxford standard with "secularization" and other examples. I'm inclined to agree that we should opt for that convention simply because it's already present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The IP was only changing what should be used on the talk page not the article. The article (not the talk page) has been using Oxford spelling for some time. While it may be preferable for the talk page to match what the article uses, I do not see any urgent or important need to require any specific spelling on the talk page. Updated to strike my misunderstanding of the effect of placing the template on the talk page. I learned something new today. — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

In that case, it really doesn't matter. I'm opposed to requiring a particular form of English on a talk page on principle, for what it matters. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Templates on the talk refer (as they say) to the article. No one thinks we should dictate a style of English for talk page posts. It sounds as if we should specify Oxford. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It is already specified as Oxford in the article. — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not have a preference for or against Oxford spelling. As the {{Oxford spelling}} directive was already present in the article, I did an audit back in November 2022 to harmonize its use.

I intentionally left alone and did not change direct quotations and titles for cited references that do not use Oxford spelling. If there are sound reasons for changing those as well, I would encourage a discussion here on the talk page to reach consensus before making that change. — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I have investigated the history of any directive/decision regarding language and spelling to be used in the Catholic Church article. While I cannot claim to have done a completely thorough search, I was able to find most of primary talk page discussions and I identified when directives were added or changed to the talk page and the article. Below are lists of the key edits:

Language/spelling directive changes on talk page

Language/spelling directive changes on talk page 2013 March 3: first time {{British English}} was added to the talk page. (edit summary: "Adding Banner: British English") 2019 January 16: changed the language variety to {{British English Oxford spelling}}. (no edit summary) 2019 May 29: reversion of the 16 January 2019 edit, so {{British English}} was restored. (edit summary: "Unexplained change made against long-standing consensus.")

Talk page discussions

Talk page discussions 2009 December 8: discusses spelling (original edit that started that discussion). No real closure or decision made, but there was an observation that the article now consistently uses the American organization. 2011 February 10-20: recognized mixed British & American use throughout article. A call for consistency was encouraged, regardless of which usage is chosen. 2011 April 30: cited MOS:RETAIN; asserted article initially used British English. Discussion did not reach a final decision, and other editors indicated they did not care which language or spelling should be used, but that it should be consistent throughout. 2013 March 3: Notification that {{British English}} had been added to the talk page on that date. One editor responded to ask why. A third editor cited MOS:RETAIN. 2016 February 9: entitled "Please Vote on Whether to Use American or British English in the Article". It was not a formal RfC. The brief (~1 hour) debate among 4 editors was closed with "Consensus of remaining involved editors is WP:ENGVAR, no further point in discussion." IMO, the debate was a bit strident (lacking in AGF and perhaps uncivil) and given the small # of participants and the short duration, I'm not sure I would support citing it as documenting a consensus. 2018 April 10: protected edit request to change the spelling of "civilisations" in first paragraph of the article to "civilizations" was declined by an administrator with reason: The article is in non-Oxford British English—or at least, the majority of the article is. There are a few places where, for instance, the spelling of recognise needs corrected. That said, since the article is in British English, I see no compelling reason presented to change the spellings to either Oxford British or American. 2018 September 25: request asking that "civilisation" be changed to "civilization". The request was denied with the comment: "The article is written in British English, so the spelling is correct." 2019 May 28: reminder posted that the article is written in British English, "so the more common British spellings and punctuation styles are meant to be used throughout." 2022 August 5: semi-protected edit request to change "civilisation" to "civilization" in the first paragraph of the article. The request was declined with the comment: "The article uses British spelling. The spelling with an "s" is correct."

Language/spelling variety directive changes in Article

Language/spelling variety directive changes in Article 2011 May 19: {{Use British English}} added for first time. (edit summary: "more British spellings, added tag") 2020 April 11: change to {{Use British English Oxford spelling}}. (edit summary: "British English Oxford spelling") 2022 March 13: directive changed to {{Use Oxford spelling}} (edit summary "clean up, typo(s) fixed: from 1942–1944 → from 1942 to 1944"

Significant/mass spelling changes in Article

Significant/mass content spelling changes in Article 2020 April 11: changed the spelling of many words to use Oxford spelling (-ize). (edit summary: "British English Oxford spelling") 2022 November 28: harmonize use of Oxford spelling throughout per the presence of the {{Use Oxford spelling}} directive. (edit summary: "the directive at the top of the article is to "use Oxford spelling". Principally this means the use of -ize instead of -ise endings, but otherwise traditional British spelling and vocabulary. I've made the bold edit to make changes throughout, but if I've got that wrong, made mistakes or want to discuss on the talk page then feel free to revert."

After reviewing the data, I think the following are true:

1. It is likely that the article (including both Catholicism and Catholic Church, which were originally separate articles that were eventually merged) was initially in British English.
2. There is a consistent view in support of British English with -ise spellings, as evidenced by:
   1. Talk page discussions as early as 2009
   2. The {{Use British English}} tag was added to the article in May 2011.
   3. The {{British English}} template was added to the talk page in March 2013.
3. Despite this,
   1. there continued to be mixed usage in the article up until November 2022,
   2. {{British English Oxford spelling}} was added to the talk page in January 2019, although it was reverted four months later.
   3. {{Use British English Oxford spelling}} was added to the article in May 2020 and remains there as {{Use Oxford spelling}}.
4. Oxford spelling was harmonized throughout the article in November 2022 per the Oxford directive in the article at that time. Given the history, that appears to have been a mistake (albeit done in good-faith).
5. While some editors prefer one or the other, many editors do not care, but want consistency.

We can either

1. live with the de facto British English Oxford spelling or
2. revert back to British English without Oxford spelling.

The first does not require any effort other than changing the talk page template, but the second would require changes throughout the article. Since I was the one who harmonized Oxford spelling throughout the article based on the {{Use Oxford spelling}} directive that is still there, I am willing to help revert back if the consensus is to do that. :— Archer1234 (t·c) 04:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Any comments? Absent a consensus on how to proceed, I hesitate to be bold and make a change on my own initiative. So, I guess it will stay as it is, with a discrepancy between having {{British English}} on the talk page and {{Use Oxford spelling}} in the article.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. I don't speak or write British, so it is easier for me if the article remains Oxfordized to make it closer to American spelling. It already uses Oxford English in its current state, and a discrepancy between talkpage and article is untenable; I would just as soon keep it Oxford with a firm consensus going forward. I can't see how anyone benefits from manually reverting to generic British English; it seems to have been an arbitrary choice that was never consistently maintained. The subject is neither definitely considered British versus American that would make it a matter of policy which varient is used. All edits bringing us here were made in good faith based on inconsistent language tags that were overlooked for many months. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• I am going to be Bold and change the talkpage to Oxford English to reflect the current tag on the main article. If consensus says the article should be reverted to generic British, then both the article and talkpage should be updated together. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Protestantism as a listed separation?

Hello all! Here on the recommendation of @Jahaza. I was wondering the communities thoughts about adding "Protestantism" as a listed separation in the infobox. I was looking at the Eastern Orthodox Church Wikipage and it has listed the separations from it, the Old Believers and True Orthodox church. Also the Coptic Orthodox Church has it's separations listed, those being Coptic Catholic Church and the British Orthodox Church. A third example is the Assyrian Church of the East which has its separations, those being the Chaldean Catholic Church and Ancient Church of the East listed.

The Catholic Church has a major separation, perhaps more historically significant than the Orthodox Churches separations if we look at it's follower count. @Jahaza brought up a good point, adding Protestantism to the infobox can be seen as a neutrality issue, but if Protestantism originated in another Church I would be saying the same thing. It seems too historically significant to leave out. The biggest problem I foresee is how to add it, because Protestantism is not a Church, but an umbrella term for thousands of Churches all with different beliefs. But regardless, the reformation is a significant event in the history of Christianity, I'd say second most significant after the East–West Schism.

It seems potentially biased to leave it out, because it can give the impression the Catholic Church is perfect, or the "One true church", as it is the most followed Christian tradition, and most influential, even having its own country (the Vatican City). Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, why add that, but not the East–West Schism? Arianism was also important, though there are no real Arians these days. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be hard to label the East-West schism because then we would have to identify which Church split from which, and that will get into a whole disagreement. Because both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics think they are the true original Church of Jesus Christ. You make a good point, we can also add Arianism. Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Compared to other Christian bodies, the Catholic Church has a vast number of separated bodies that came off it. The list, to be comprehensive in any meaningful sense, would necessarily be both unwieldy and non-neutral. It's just not feasible. Also, I think there are two or three leaps required to get from "oh, the separations aren't listed in the already optional infobox" to "Wikipedia believes in extra Ecclesiam nulla salus". ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair point, I am just worried about the significance factor, no other splits had as much influence or reach as the Protestant split. Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, the Great Schism/East-West schism is hugely important, arguably bigger than the Protestant split. The tough thing from a NPOV POV is that both sides claim the other separated. (This is also the case with some of the Protestant groups.) Jahaza (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that is a problem - "separation" is pretty neutral, and very close in meaning to the official "schism". The final act was by the Western church, & I don't think that is controversial either, but "who started it" is not really the issue. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Bolding "Catholicism"

Discussion was around actions of a now-blocked sock. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Cahnc has said that "Catholicism" is not an alternative name for this article and, according to MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, it shouldn't be bolded in the lead. This is incorrect. Catholicism is a popular redirect to this article, averaging 405 daily hits over the last five months; the redirect Roman Catholicism averaged 444 daily hits over the same period. "Catholicism" also regularly is used as a synonym to "Catholic Church" across Wikipedia's article naming, such as Catholicism in the Second Spanish Republic and the innumerable "Catholicism in X" redirects to "Catholic Church in X" articles. Britannica defines Roman Catholicism as the "Christian church that has been the decisive spiritual force in the history of Western civilization". According to BOLDALTNAMES, "Catholicism" ought to be bolded. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC) It should also be added that the WikiProject for topics related to the Catholic Church is named WikiProject Catholicism. Input regarding this is appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC) A set of beliefs and a religious organisation are different things. Neither is an alternative name for the other, even if there are situations in which one could straightforwardly replace a reference to one with a reference to the other. Bold face is used in the first sentence of articles as a simple visual re-emphasis of the article title. What purpose do you think is served by putting this word in bold face in the second paragraph? In what way does it benefit a reader of the article? Cahnc (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC) @Cahnc, the article title Catholicism redirects to this article, so its first occurrence in the article should be bold. We bold redirect targets in articles to help readers find the term that they were searching for and to help convey that they reached the correct target. If you disagree with the various Catholicism redirects, you could bring them up for discussion at WP:RFD. If you disagree with the MOS convention of bolding redirect target terms in an article, start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. Schazjmd (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC) If Cahnc is confused, this article is about both the set of beliefs and the organization associated with them (in Catholicism and much of Christianity in general, these are inseparable components). If there were another article on the largest single Christian religion entitled "Catholicism", then they'd have a point. But that's not the case. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Well, the account has just been blocked as a sock, so that ends this discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Dogma before Love - Claimed Quote by Pope Francis

As of 2023/07/19 the article says, in the "Sexual Morality" section,

> Pope Francis said in 2015 that he is worried that the church has grown "obsessed" with issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and contraception and has criticized the Catholic Church for placing dogma before love, and for prioritising moral doctrines over helping the poor and marginalized.

It cites this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/pope-bluntly-faults-churchs-focus-on-gays-and-abortion.html

In that article, the phrase "Dogma before Love" is not attributed as a direct quote, but rather apparently the article author's summary of what was said.

If this is not a direct quote from Pope Francis that can be verified, it should not be attributed to him. 24.0.85.71 (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed that particular phrase. The phrase seems to be a roughly accurate summation of the ideas expressed in the pope's comments but it was not something he said. It wasn't presented in quotation marks, so there was a lessened expectation of precision. However, that sentence was already running a bit long and the ideas presented in an editorial should be only cautiously taken as reliable reflections of reality when pertaining to the state of mind of a third party. Good work, IP. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible GAR

Onegreatjoke, you recently added the GAR request tag to this article. What issues in particular did you have in mind? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Change official URL

Could someone please change the official URL in the infobox at Wikidata. It was vatican.va but should now be vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html ~ kathleen wright5 (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2023

The Catholic Church does not officially recognize the title of "Roman Catholic." Please remove any labels that attempt to identify it as such. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term). Source: https://www.catholic.com/qa/when-did-the-term-roman-catholic-church-first-come-into-being Jpkenney2187 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.. Also, WP:COMMONNAME may apply. RudolfRed (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

There is also a recent discussion about this at the top of this talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

"one true religion"

The section on "the nature of the church" under "doctrine" says that the Catholic Church affirms itself as the "one true religion" and cites paragraph 2 of dignitatis humanae, but the paragraph says no such thing. The Catholic Church affirms in nostra aetate that the true church subsists in the institution of the Catholic Church but pointedly does not claim the two are identical, and it has long been catholic doctrine that God has many that the (institution of the) Church does not, and the (institution of the) Church has many that God does not, as st. Augustine said. 2600:8800:25A6:1000:84C0:B4FA:4B3E:374A (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph two of Dignitatis humanae includes the following passage, with emphasis mine: "We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men." I'm unclear as to what change you would like to see in the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word "indispensable" is not NPOV

"It is among the world's oldest and largest international institutions, and has played an indispensable role in the history, development, and progression of Western civilization."

The word "indispensible" implies that its role could not have been substituted for anything else. However well sourced you think this claim is, it's unfalsifiable and impossible to reasonably validate. It conveys a bias towards the role of the church that is unwarranted, given the Church's well documented role in suppressing Enlightenment ideals and its opposition to liberal traditions that others would argue are the real basis of Western civilisation. I suggest replacing this word with "major" or "significant", or else removing this sentence altogether. It's not relevant enough that it belongs in the first paragraph. 219.89.38.16 (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. We need to have a variety and multiplicity of reliable sources that use a term like that before inserting it. I have restored previous wording for NPOV reasons. Thank you for raising the issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is not Christian

The Catholic Church is NOT a Christian church! Please change this to say they are their own denomination and their own religion. Jesus didn't have a denomination so neither should we. Christians do not pray to mother Mary, they do not believe in purgatory, they don't Believe you can just sin all week long and get grace on Sunday. And the Catholic Church has rewritten their own version of the ten commandments to remove the second commandment to not make any carved images and bow down to them because they do exactly that. They broke the tenth commandment up into two commandments to make up for this. Please edit this and stop misleading people. This is not a Christian church at all. Not even close. Dparchen (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Reliable sources agree that Catholics are Christians. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Inauguration of the Catholic Church

The Gregorian astronomic 22 May 33 CE (its Julian 24 AD) was the day of the inauguration of the Catholic Church. This day was Pentecost. This solemnity is Its anniversary. The 19 May of this actual year will bee Its 1991st anniversary.

200.155.114.240 (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no Catholic Church before the East–West Schism (1054). Dimadick (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not true, as the church certainly existed before then as Latin Christianity. Wikipedia doesn't take sides in the Great Schism nor the earlier schisms that saw the Nestorian (in the historic sense) and Oriental Orthodox break communion with Rome and Constantinople. It's for the best that we don't use any establishment date. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Pentecost (Gregorian astronomic 22 May 33 CE) would not exist without Easter (its Gregorian astronomic 3 April). This two solemnities are movable. The probable Paschal time is 3:00 IST (1:00 GMT) and the probable Pentecostal time is 9:00 IST (7:00 GMT).

200.155.120.37 (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

How do you know what you pretend to know? WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)