Jump to content

Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Relations with Mussolini and Franco

I am shocked that there is no part of this article which even mentions the Fascist leaders of Spain and Italy, which were both supported by the Catholic Church. The Church's past political orientation with regards fascism is as important as its opposition to communism and should certainly be included. Also, it should be mentioned that the Church signed pacts with Hitler. I'm not being anti-Catholic here, but it's appropriate we should be balanced. 195.137.85.173 (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

1) The brief (and ambiguous) appeasement of fascism by the Catholic Church is hardly worth the same mention as their drastic influence on the Cold War.

2) Keep in mind this is a summary of a 2000 year-old institution. The United States is alot younger than the Catholic Chirch - and by extension, its history section should be more in depth - and yet its article fails to mention how their investments bolstered the Nazi state. Deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.10.54 (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

disambig

The following links need disambig:
assumption
Clovis
dominicans
Lord's Supper
Moor
Reduction
Seven sacraments
Valerian
Randomblue (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks for finding these and pointing them out. --Mike Searson (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Catholic_population.png

According to the Wikipedia article on the Republic of Ireland the country is 86.8% Catholic. According to the Wikipedia article on Croatia the country is 87.8% Catholic.

On the world map both countries are given 50%-60% (light green on the map) instead of 80%-90% (dark blue on the map). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mileiii (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We encountered various estimates in world catholic population. We went with this picture because it seemed the source was reliable in accordance with Wikipedia policies. If you have a better source or would like of note these exceptions to the picture in the paragraph and provide a reference for your addition, please do. We want it to be as accurate as possible and we need your input if you have the informatio that will make it better! NancyHeise (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid this problem, I replace image with an image of baptism. I think this is a good substitute.NancyHeise (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Image deleted

An editor, Dmitri, added a picture labeled "interior of a Catholic Church in Nicaragua" that showed an altar with a picture of the Blessed Mother above it , no cross as if it were worshipping Mary. This is not a picture of an interior of a CAtholic Church but possibly a chapel for praying to Mother Mary asking for her intercession, not worship. The picture is very misleading to people who are not Catholic and I have deleted it. If a picture is going to be added with the words "interior of a Catholic Church" it should be something that will not mislead the reader into thinking we worship Mary as Catholics are commonly and incorrectly accused of doing. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I replaced it with an image from the interior of Saint Patricks Cathedral in New York.NancyHeise (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Emblem of the Papacy

Seems to be hanging at the wrong place, or the wrong article! Better not to try to fit the picture if it would be different from the context being shown by the paragraph beside it. --210.213.72.210 (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it looked better before. I eliminated the picture of St Patrick church and put the papal emblem back in that spot like it was before. I think the picture spacing is better this way too. NancyHeise (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I very much like the new picture of St Peters at the start of the article. A big improvement. Xandar (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

History Introduction

I have reworded the recent additions to the History introduction slightly for style and put the "official" view first, for clarity, and the counter view second, rather than the other way round. Xandar (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you did a great job of rewording as always. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Percent of priests who abuse children

Someone placed a percentage on the last paragraph of history section that says that 0.02% of total priests in the world have been acccused of sexual abuse. It was referenced to a book by Phillip Jenkins. The online version of that book omits the relevent pages in its 2001 edition. I noticed on GoogleBooks that there is a 2005 edition by the same name but a different publisher, DIANE Publishing Company. I don't have that book but I will go to the library tomorrow to find it and try to get a page number and date for that figure. In the meantime, if the person who placed that percent on the page would be kind enough to direct me to the source and give a date we need to be able to put a date with the figure. For now I put As of 2004 but Im not sure that is correct. I will have this addressed by tomorrow. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This needs to split and merged

This article really could be more organized. Specifically, #Church History and #Beliefs sections' information really should be in another article. #Origin and Mission also seems out of place.Mike92591 (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If we eliminate history and beliefs, there wont be anything left. Looking at the FA Islam these sections are standard fare and core to the issue of what the Roman Catholic Church is. NancyHeise (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
There would still be stuff for history and beliefs it would just be smaller. This is a big topic so I think this article should be something like a directory. I think 75% of the article is just too much.Mike92591 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Beliefs is a fundamental, if not THE fundamental section of an article on a faith-based body. History too is very important. I would guess that the majority of people looking up Catholic Church on Wikipedia would be much more interested in these aspects rather than organization, structure, ranks of clergy etc. Xandar (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've made the same comment on FAC about the Origin and Mission section seeming out of place. I think that could easily be eliminated and the information added into the Beliefs and History sections (some of that information is already duplicated in those sections). The history section is trimmed down pretty well and has been much improved over the last FA attempt. I also think it would be best to have a separate article on Roman Catholic Church beliefs that is summarized here, but I see the point of leaving all of the information here as well. Karanacs (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with Karanacs suggestion as it would gut the entire article fracturing this very important compilation of Roman Catholic Topics that expand into other Wikiproject Catholicism areas. Breaking it up will make it absolutely un-useful to anyone. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, we need to consider nine editors who voted to support the page in its current form. 74.225.135.118 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The biggest issue is that the bulk of that information is already in other places. Duplicating the information leads to unnecessary length and confusion. There also seems to be a fear that making any changes will endanger the supports you've already received. In my experience as a reviewer, that is very very rare. Making prose and organization changes generally pleases the supporters too, because the article almost invariably ends up better when multiple people have pointed out issues. Karanacs (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still disagree, they are two different situations. If anything, maybe the content in the history section needs to be more concise. I 'll take a look at rewording. NancyHeise (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, I changed both the Origin section and the Church history section and they are now different discussions with the history version greatly reduced. Please let me know what you think. This is actually more accurate since none of the sources dispute that the Roman Church existed they are just not in agreement on when there was a ruling bishop. Duffy states that the Church in Rome was already there before St. Peter got there. NancyHeise (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I like this version even less. It doesn't really make sense to me in the history section to point people to a different section, and the new Origins paragraph sounds even more like preaching (to me) than it did. I still think the section is unnecessary.Karanacs (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm very convinced by the "Origins and Mission" section at all, really. It seems to me to be a "church view" presentation of material which should be presented neutrally in the History and Beliefs sections respectively. I think the article would be better without it. TSP (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I made some changes to address both of your concerns - I think this is an even better organization, more logical and it puts the historical dispute in the history section and beliefs in beleifs section. NancyHeise (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
All that did was move the disputed section to be a subsection of Beliefs. That means there is STILL duplicated information between Origins and History, and the Origins and Mission section STILL reads like RCC propaganda. Karanacs (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I am very not OK with your comment here. Clearly, now the origins and mission section are under the subheading of Beliefs, no one can call this propaganda, it is not being presented as fact. Neither does this overlap with the discussion in the Church history opening paragraph. How can you call this propaganda when its in a Beliefs section? Should I go over to the Islam page and tell them that they cant put their beliefs under a section entitled beliefs because it is propaganda? "The church traces its origins to...", " the church believes it mission is ..." these are the words used to begin the paragraph. That is differnt from saying "The church origins are" or "The church mission is" NancyHeise (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am just wondering what you are trying to get at? Do you want me to delete entirely the origin and mission section? Would this make the aritcle more informative to the reader who wants to know what the Catholic Church is and believes? If the church holds a belief on its origins and mission it should be part of beliefs, you were the one who wanted this to go into beliefs in the first place, how can you now call this propaganda? NancyHeise (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Karanacs suggestion to eliminate the mission section of this article (posted on my talk page). The church mission is a core part of the definition of what the Catholic Church is, the page would not be more complete or informative without this referenced information but less complete and less informative to the reader who wants to know why the church does some of the things it does. I have taken into account the views of the nine editors who voted to support the article at its second FA nomination with the content intact when making this decision. Please note that there are 4 editors who have voted against and none of them mentions the origins and mission section at all. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not in the FAC, but others mentioned it here as well. The RCC's view of the its own origins is its interpretation, not a core RCC belief. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the RCC beliefs section, it belongs in the history section, as one perspective. The mission section really doesn't say anything more than any Christian church would claim (it is not RCC-specific), some of the information is duplicated elsewhere in the article (Catholic social teachings, etc), and the rest of it sounds more like a "preaching" tone than an encyclopedic tone to me. Karanacs (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the body of reliable sources I have used say that Peter was the first pope and Jesus specifically told him in the Gospel to "feed my sheep" etc. I would say that is RCC specific. I have moved both Origin and Mission section out of beliefs and included the entire discussion on origins there as well. There is only one other editor on this talk page who has sided with you on this discussion and that does not make consensus when you compare the eleven supports on the FA page with my version. NancyHeise (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

History. Persecutions.

Altered this area. Confusion between Galerius edict of toleration in 311, and the Edict of Milan of 313 sorted out. Xandar (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This sentence does not make sense to me: Diocletian persecution was began to wane in 311 by the tetrarch EmperorGalerius, who issued an edict of tolerance on his deathbed. Karanacs (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

New copyedit

I have reworked the article down to the Church History section for style and readability. I have made a couple of minor changes for the sake of clarity and avoiding dupication. I am now beat, since it took six hours solid. Hopefully it has improved the fluency. Xandar (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant copyedit by Xandar

It would really be difficult to describe Xandars copyedit of this article in any words other than "brilliant". This editor is a true genius of prose and I can not be more grateful for his valuable contributions to the page. Great job Xandar! NancyHeise (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Though it doesn't compare with the amount of work you've been doing on this article. Xandar (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

a few more disambig

holy matrimony and vatican need disambig Randomblue (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing these out, I appreciate your work and I fixed these right away. I also addressed SandyGEorgias comments on copyediting, references, accessdates, dates, and various other comments she left within the text of her edits on the edit history. I believe this is complete but I am willing to fix anything else anyone may point out that maybe I am not seeing. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

spacing in references

Sometimes there is a space, and sometimes not. E.g. 'p. 15' and 'p.18'. Randomblue (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will go through and make sure there is consistency. NancyHeise (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I spent several hours reading Wikipedia punctuation policy an styles and went through the entire page making a great number of punctuation and style changes. I think the copyedit portion is complete. NancyHeise (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The space problems are still everywhere; every time I look, I find another one that needs fixing. WP:MOS#Ellipses hasn't been dealt with either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Sandy, I think I need some expert help to fix those, I just dont know what is wrong with the WP:MOS#Ellipses or the spaces, I have gone through fixing the specific ones you suggested (between book title and date) . Maybe I'm not qualified to fix these if I cant see them, I would appreciate some help in this area if any other editors want to chip in here. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I finished replacing the books with no page numbers so I think there are just these spacing issues left? Let me know if there is anything else. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

4 more disambig

ascension, Peter, St Augustine, St Clement Randomblue (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your valuable help in this area - I'll get right on it! NancyHeise (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did all of these except ascension which I could not find wikilinked anywhere. The only mention I could find was ascended which is in the creed in Beleifs section and that is not wikilinked. Anyone who wants to help find the wikilinked ascension and disambigu it, please do. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

minor tweaks

Despite the impressive work being currently done here, I was bold and made some very minor copyedits to part of the History section, mainly because I saw some paragraphs being too long. So I broke them at (what seemed to me) natural places. I also consolidated one minorly awkward passage, and made a small word swap for POV ("great" -> "large"). I am aware that "great" can have more specific meanings, esp in the context of a major world religion, so if the sources justify that usage, please revert it and accept my apologies.

Otherwise, the progress here is quite impressive. Keep up the good work everyone. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

per Nancy's request

Nancy wanted to know how I'd improve this article, as it is (I think) biased pro-RCC. I just made some changes as a demonstration of the sort of stuff that comes to mind. I sincerely hope I don't get sucked into trying to get the bias out of this page. Leadwind (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am OK with the changes that were made to remove POV per Leadwind's efforts. I think the article is better and I thank him for his efforts to improve it. NancyHeise (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sections

Why have the sections early Middle Ages and High Middle Ages been merged, as well as The Modern Era, and Vatican II and beyond? All it seems to do is move everything into a dense mass of text, hard to read, and understand. Merging everything from 400AD to 1400 Ad into one enormous paragraph is unmanageable. Similarly with material from 1800 to the present. I will put back the old sections. Xandar (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me, I was trying to clean up the table of contents - you can replace it just don't use the word "the" in the heading since the Wikipedia policies advise against it. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First sentence

There have been some back and forth changes to the first sentence today. The current version is: "The Roman Catholic Church, or Catholic Church [...]" . The previous version was: "The Roman Catholic Church, sometimes referred to as The Catholic Church [...]". The previous version is actually correct. The term "Catholic Church" is not synonymous with "Roman Catholic Church". The "Catholic Church" includes all Catholic churches, orthodox, independent catholics, old catholics, and other groups which are still catholic, but not part of the Roman Catholic Church. Referring to the Roman Catholic Church as the Catholic Church introduces confusion of the terms which are hardly helpful in first sentence of this article. I just wanted to clarify things here before changing the sentence back. Dgf32 (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the article to say: "The Roman Catholic Church is the Christian church led by the Bishop of Rome". This avoids confusion between the terms "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic". I think the form of the first sentence above is best, but the following form would be factually correct: "The Roman Catholic Church, sometimes referred to as The Catholic Church, is the Christian church led by the Bishop of Rome". However, it is slightly misleading as it might be taken to imply that the "Roman Catholic Church" and the "Catholic Church" are the same thing. That is the error that this article must be careful to avoid. Dgf32 (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
They are the same thing according to the beliefs of the church which is the subject of this article, so refusing to say so is POV. Since it's an alternate name, it really should be in the lead somehow. Gimmetrow 21:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article about the Roman Catholic Church can not be written with the assumption that everything the church teaches is true. "According to the beliefs of the church which is the subject of this article" the Roman Catholic Church and Catholic Church are the same, but that's having a RCC point of view, and not a NPOV. This is the essence of WP:NPOV. Dgf32 (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The point you make is already taken care of with the disambiguation at the top of the page: ""Catholic Church" redirects here. For other uses, see Catholic Church (disambiguation)." Dgf32 (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This lead has long said something to the effect: "also known as the Catholic Church". That's hardly asserting a church doctrine as truth. Gimmetrow 21:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"... sometimes referred to as The Catholic Church" would be more correct. Dgf32 (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As long as it's there. Gimmetrow 21:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I decided to bring back the "previous" version. Hopefully that solves any issues. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt mean to cause a fuss by my edit, I was just trying to make the lead more concise and the first sentence just seemed to use a lot of words to me. I don't really care if you put it back the way it was before, fine with me. Thanks for making the change and Im sorry to have ruffled any feathers! Peace! NancyHeise (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I still think the best version of the first sentence is the most simple: "The Roman Catholic Church is the Christian church led by the Bishop of Rome [...]". If anyone wants to change it back to that version, it's fine with me. Dgf32 (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To summarize for those of you who have not been following the talk page closely, here are the forms of the first sentence that we have agreed upon above and maintain NPOV:

  • "The Roman Catholic Church is the Christian church led by the Bishop of Rome [...]"
  • "The Roman Catholic Church, sometimes referred to as the Catholic Church, is the Christian church led by the Bishop of Rome [...]"
  • "The Roman Catholic Church, also referred to as the Catholic Church, is the Christian church led by the Bishop of Rome [...]"

Any of the above are acceptable. Pick which ever you prefer. However, it's not factually correct, much less NPOV, to state that the catholic church as a whole is the same as the Roman Catholic Church. Dgf32 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How about: "The Roman Catholic Church, often referred to as the Catholic Church"? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be quite fine, very correct, and maintain NPOV. Dgf32 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. An excellent suggestion. We now have:

I agree with that alt title. --WikiCats (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing issues in the history section

I will first only address the first three paragraphs of "Roman Empire (30–476)", to provide examples of what is wrong with the referencing in the article.

This is supported by Geography of Religion, which is discussing early Christianity generally, rather than addressing the specific history of the Roman Catholic Church.


This supported by The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. The Oxford does not place the Jerusalem synod as part of Roman Catholic history. It is not stated in the source if the reference to it is simply demonstrating a trend in Christianity, a continuous Christian tradition or the historical roots of a tradition of a specific church. We could make assumptions about that, but such guesses are not allowed.


Also supported by the Oxford, with similar issues as above.


This is supported by The Roman Catholic Church, An Illustrated History and Saints and Sinners. I must admit my discomfort with the first source. Edward Norman is fairly famous for his rather rabid adherence to the RCC and similarly fierce dismissal of other branches of orthodox Christianity (particularly Anglicanism). As such, there are some concerns about the strong bias he carries. However, the book is published by a university press and he is a professor at a distinguished school, so I will not object to the source, but rather simply express some reservations due to the author's open and strong bias (whether or not his bias is a concern for WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, I leave to other editors). I am sure there are more neutral sources that make the same or similar claims, avoiding the problem of using such a biased author. I cannot find where the claim is support by Saints and Sinners. It does not seem to be supported by the page number indicated. What text from the source is being used to support the claim? As a final concern, the sources do not seem to specifically mention the "Apostolic Fathers" and "Early Church Fathers", so there are obvious original research issues here.


This is supported by Geography of Religion. Same concerns as previous use of this source.


Completely unreferenced.


Also supported by Geography of Religion. Same concerns as previous use of this source. Vassyana (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Addressed issues struck. 05:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Vassyana, do you have a source in mind that actually distinguishes between the early Roman Catholic Church and early Christianity? That seems like the sort of distinction a reputable historian would not make. If the literature generally does not distinguish between early Roman Catholic Church history and early Christian history, why should there be such a distinction in WP? The.helping.people.tick (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary it does. I believe the first references to "Catholic Church" appear in 110AD. There is nothing that distinguishes between the two, because they were one and the same. Schisms, heresies, and the like many centuries later contributed to a distinction.--Mike Searson (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking for sources that distinguish between the two. I am simply asking that sources specifically dealing with the history of the Roman Catholic Church be used to document the history of the Roman Catholic Church in the article. It's a fairly common sense request. Vassyana (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
But Vassyana, they do - the two main university presses are only about Roman Catholic Church - Edward Norman and Eamon Duffy. The next two sources that are not Roman Catholic Specific in their titles, specifically discuss the Roman Catholic Church - Oxford History has a section entitled Rome that talks only about Roman Catholic Church and National Geographic specifically discusses Peter as the first pope of the church in Rome.

I just dont understand the disconnect here that you are claiming with the RCC and these sources. I dont know of any Wikipedia policy you can cite that would disallow me using a Christianity book that specifically talks about the Roman Catholic Church.NancyHeise (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Saints and Sinners does not support the statement: "Throughout the following centuries church teachings and traditions were then defined and formed into a systematic whole with the help of Apostolic Fathers and Early Church Fathers like St. Clement, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Augustine, and Polycarp among others." I made that objection very clear above. I've clearly explained the issue with the Oxford above. The material supported by Geography of Religion is not the claim that Saint Peter was the first pope, so your comment is fairly meaningless in response to my objections. The cited material is discussing Christianity, not the Roman Catholic Church in particular. Vassyana (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That sentence is sourced to two books that discuss the same thing - the defining of church teachings by these Apostolic Fathers. I had to provide two sources because each of them had some of the same names but some different ones. Saints and Sinners page 9 as sourced says "It was against this mid-century background of ritual and doctrinal confusion that the "monarchic episcopate", the rule of the church by a single bishop, was accepted in Rome. Throughout the Mediterranean world the rule of bishops came to be seen as a crucial defence against heresy. As Irenaeus wrote in his Treatise against the Heresies, 'It is within the power of anyone who cares, to find the truth and know the tradition of the Apostles...we are able to name those who were appointed bishops by the Apostles in the churches and their sucessors down to our onw times.'"...Duffy then goes on to discuss the meeting of Anicetus and Polycarp on the date of Easter. Then he states still on page 9 "It was in the time of Anicetus that the earliest attempts were made to compile a succession list of the Roman bishops, drawing on the remembered names of leading presbytyrs like Clement." This whole discussion is talking about the formation of the church doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" and Easter date - church teachings and traditions defined into a systematic whole with the help of Polycarp, Clement (whose letter interceding on behelf of the priests was seen as a demonstration of papal authority in the other reference). The other reference specifially mentions the other names. NancyHeise (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The sources do not specifically discuss the "Apostolic Fathers" nor the "Early Church Fathers". Also, the sources do not make the general observation about the facts that the article asserts. We are not permitted to put words in the mouths of references. Stick to the sources or find other sources. Vassyana (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Vassyana, using your own criteria, the phrase "not permitted to put words in the mouths of references" does not appear in WP:NOR which you cited in your comment above. Continuing to apply your strict criteria, it appears that you have inappropriately articulated a policy to serve your own ends, namely communication. Read WP:NOR again, and tell me where there is any reference to "mouths." My point is that references to Anicetus, Polycarp, Clement and others like them as a group are commonly understood to be apostolic fathers or Early Church Fathers. There is nothing POV or polemical about using this shorthand to refer to the group. If the reason for the reference is something other than proving that there is a group called apostolic fathers, and other than attributing a direct quote, then it seems ok to me. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
NOR states in the lede that "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." [emphasis in original; emphasis added] We are not restricted by the content policies in interpreting policies, but on the contrary are expected to uphold the principles of the policies. Regardless, NOR demands that we exactingly report what is in reliable sources without adding our own conclusions or opinions. It's not very complicated and it's not an unusual request that the basic content policies be followed closely for good and featured articles. To address this specific instance, such a broad attribution is erroneous and misleading. Not all of the Apostolic and Church Fathers fall within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy, with Origen's theology as a notable example. However, regardless of my personal knowledge and opinions, if a reputable source made the assertion that the two broad groups as a whole are fundamental to Catholic history and theology, I would not make personal assertions against the claim.Vassyana (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a very interesting point about Origen. I've never looked at it that way before (I would have gone the other way with non-Catholic Christians rejecting the early popes). I would assume if another source were brought forth listing Polycarp for example as one of what Catholics would consider a Church or apostolic Father, that it would be ok? Not picking on Saint Polycarp, but his feastday was a major Church Holy day until 1969 or whenever Paul VIrestructured the Calendar of Saints. For argument's sake...would mention in the Roman Missal (specifically a prayer in the Canon of the Mass prior to Consecration) be a good source for Apostolic Fathers? It was said for at least 500 years in the Tridentine Rite and some of it mentioned in the New Rite as one of the Eucharistic Prayers from 1969 onward (although the last time I heard a priest say it in English had to be circa 1979).--Mike Searson (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Without seeing the proposed sourcing or revisions, I cannot comment on any specifics. However, I would generally put solid trust in your judgment. Your recent edits seem to address my concerns about appropriate use of sources (and the use of appropriate sources) very well.[1] Vassyana (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Sources

None of my sources, Roman Catholic Church friendly or not say anything about the Roman Catholic Church not existing from day one. They all acknowledge and Eamon Duffy even acknowledges that it existed even before Peter became its first bishop. How can I not include the earliest history of the church when all of my sources say that the Roman church was in existence and Peter was writing his first letter from Rome as its bishop?

Since one of my Roman Catholic Church specific University Press Sources says this: "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime." and "The apostolate was established in Rome, the world's capital when the Church was inaugurated: it was there that the universality of Christian teaching most oabviously took its central directive - it was the bishopss of Rome who very early on began to receive requests for sdjudication on disputed points from other bishops." quotes from page 10 and 14 of Roman Catholic Church, and Illustrated History by Edward Norman.
The meeting in Jerusalem in the year 50 is mentioned in the Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity on page 37 under the sub-heading "Rome" after it talks about the Roman church in depth and uses these words "In Acts 15 scripture recorded the apostles meeting in synod ro reach a common policy about the Gentile mission...." This is actually my quote that is sourced on the page. How can I not include reference to this major event when it sits in this book under the subheading Rome and right after they discuss the Roman Church in full? How is that a violation of Rome Specific sourcing? The Oxford Illustrated History is written by a collaboration of 18 scholars and university professors, this seeems to be a great consensus of historians who acknowledge the place of the Roman Church in the earliest history of Christianity, specifically mentioning the Jerusalem council. NancyHeise (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not disputing the facts. I am just asking that the history of the Roman Catholic Church be supported in the article by sources explicitly discussing the history of the Roman Catholic Church. The Oxford does not make clear whether the material is intended as a general observation about a trend in Christianity, a continuous tradition in the whole of early Christianity or the roots of a practice in a specific church. We are not permitted to clarify on the source's behalf. Furthermore, you fail to the address the fact that Geography of Religion is simply discussing general Christian history, that Saints and Sinners does not appear to support the cited claim, that there are unreferenced claims or that phrases are being attributed to the sources that do not use them. Vassyana (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana's objections are very POV. They boil down to the fact that (s)he seems to want to state that the "Roman" Catholic Church somehow appeared in history at a later historical date than the early church, and that the Roman Catholic Church and the early church are not the same body. There is very little evidence to back up such assertions, since they often tend to be based on the POV of a few small religious groups, and people like Dan Brown. A big weakness of such arguments is that the proponents can never produce a specific date or time when the early church ceased to be and a new "Roman Catholic Church", with different structure and teachings, was born. Xandar (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not currently making any such assertion or demand. All that I am requesting is that the sources specifically discuss the Roman Catholic Church. No more. No less. Vassyana (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a very careful read of WP:NPOV, including Wikipedia:UNDUE#Explanation of the neutral point of view, will help you all move forward.

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, Vassyana is insisting on a position that is not even a position amongst historians and has not provided any sources to back up her position. I have actually looked for them in the library and there are no historians who say the Roman Catholic Church did not exist at the beginning of Christianity. They all agree the church was there. The only dispute I have found is the one in this article that discusses when a ruling bishop emerged in the church, not when it originated. I can not be expected to include a view that is so minority that it is not readily found - I think the wikipedia policy specifically states just that. NancyHeise (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've repeatedly said that is not the case. Please stop misrepresenting my objections and actually address the substance of my complaints. Vassyana (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
YOu have also said that my sources must be Roman Catholic specific and I have repeatedly said that they are. Why must we go round and round on this issue over and over? The FA reviewer should just look at my sources and make the decision without us going at it like this. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was I reverted with no explanation?

Like the topic says. Citation #5 does not mention half the words in the last sentence of the first paragraph. I just made the sentence in line with our sources. Currently, there is no way for our readers to verify the content that was restored. I'm fact tagging that material. If we want this article to be featured, we need to make sure that we meet very basic policies, and that means that statements in the first paragraph of the lead need to be supported by the sources we cite. Simple as that. -Andrew c [talk] 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, citations are not required in the Lead (or Lede) personally, I think it ruins the flow of the lead with clutter. If the lead is a summary of the article, would not the claims be sourced in the article, itself? Second of all, everything you have asked for a citation is in the body of the article with an inline citation, I believe it is Citation #25. Whomever placed that source might want to move it to the lead, if that's the way it has to be. I would move it myself, but I don't have that source.--Mike Searson (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Added citation. NancyHeise (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding citations. Two minor things. The "Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge" if I am not mistaken is available online[2]. Would it be possible to link to the page in question? Also, like Mike, I do not have access to the source. The word "marginalized" seems a little strange and isn't explained in the lead, or further down in the article. Is that word used in any of the sources? (it does not appear to be in the two that I have access to), and if so what exactly is meant by that word? -Andrew c [talk] 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, it is linked already. click on the new footnote to see the last name of the author, then you go down to the bibliography, find that authors name listed alphabetically and you will see the book highlighted, click on the book and it goes to the online google book straight to the page number listed in the reference. This is the reference format I was asked to put the references in - in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see that now. Thanks. Any thoughts about my second concern? I propose we remove the word "marginalized" from the lead (and the article if we don't contextualize it further).-Andrew c [talk] 21:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I wikilinked it to a nice page describing what it means, does that satisfy your concerns? Its use is proper because I allows me to not have to spell out things like homosexuals, AIDS sufferers, alcoholics, single mothers, orphans, etc. - all of which the church has ministries to attend to the needs of.NancyHeise (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The linked article does not mention the RCC, so that did not help explain it. Does the One Faith, One Lord book use the word "marginalized"? Does the book mention "homosexuals, AIDS sufferers, alcoholics, single mothers, orphans," or if not, where did you get that list? It may be better to just say "and others" if our source isn't using the "m" word, or it may be better to quote from our sources about who exactly the Church helps. Anyone else have some ideas, or share my concerns at all?-Andrew c [talk] 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No my sources do not use the word marginalized, but the word "others" is used as well as single mothers, orphans, homeless, sick and refugees. I am OK with using "others" if it will make you happy, I will be happy too. NancyHeise (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Not to nitpick even further (I really appreciate your willingness to compromise, and of course your hard work and endless hours put into this article) but perhaps "among others" may sound a bit better? -Andrew c [talk] 01:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

split needs disambig

Randomblue (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help on this issue, I made the edit to diambig it.NancyHeise (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Final judgment and the afterlife

I am still not happy with this section, so I'm offering a revised version. Any text newly added by me is highlighted in red, so that others can determine whether I have misstated Catholic doctrine.

There are three states of afterlife in Catholic belief, and Jesus will one day sit in judgment of all mankind, assigning their souls to one of these states. Chapter 25 of the Gospel of Matthew depicts Jesus inviting those who have been faithful to God and forgiven of their sins into heaven: "Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...". Heaven is a state of everlasting happiness and union with God. A second state is purgatory, a place of temporary, purifying punishment for the souls of those who, although saved, are not free enough from sin to enter directly into heaven. The church asks for and encourages prayers for these souls, especially at Mass, to offer them solace during this transitory stage. Finally, the unfaithful and unrepentant who freely chose a life of sin and selfishness are consigned to hell for everlasting punishment and separation from God. According to church belief, no one is condemned to hell without freely deciding to reject God and his love. Death, judgment, heaven and hell are called the "four last things".

Ling.Nut (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not exactly correct but I have a new source and I'm going to supplement what is presently there to incorporate your suggestions here. Please come see the page again after a little while, Im just beginning now. Thanks for your suggestion, it should be improved as a result.NancyHeise (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes done. NancyHeise (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fleshing things out! But now a new problem arises. The article as a whole is really getting too long. My version of this section, for example [noting that it has inaccuracies] clocks in at 189 words; yours at about 517 or approaching three times the length. For example, some things that can be cut:
  • Cut: "for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me ... amen I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me" [Irrelvant; see earlier discussion]
  • Cut: "The church cites the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief to support this belief" [You're assuming that people knoww hat these are; besides it isn't an important point].
  • Cut: "Saint Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians speaks of it saying "No eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him ..."
  • Cut: "Through conscience, natural law, and revelation" [Keep the remainder of this sentence].
  • Redundant; cut something — These two sentences say the same thing: "Heaven is a state of everlasting union and happiness with God... The church believes it is a time of glorious reunion with God and the beginning of a life of unspeakable joy that will last forever."
The section could use many more eyes copy editing, in my opinion, as perhaps could the article as a whole. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have made the changes you suggested here except for eliminating the quote from Jesus which I think is key to keep as I discussed on your talk page. Thanks for your help here. NancyHeise (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

reorganization (not rewrite) of WP:LEAD + controversies

I've reorganized the lead to move, in my opinion, from "more general" to "more specific", to add a little more coherence and remove a tiny bit of redundancy, and to mention controversies as per WP:LEAD. Note that WP:LEAD explicitly directs that some mention of notable controversies be made, and that trumps Jimbo unless Jimbo explicitly states that he is speaking ex cathedra (ha ha a joke there). That is, unless he speaks as Our Leader, he speaks as merely another editor.. and WP:LEAD trumps him. but also note that I just tacked the controversies on at the end for lack of a better place; they can be moved elsewhere... So here goes:


The Roman Catholic Church, commonly referred to as the Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church, representing over half of all Christians and one sixth of the world's population.[1][2] It is made up of one Western or Latin and 22 Eastern Catholic autonomous particular churches, and divided into 2,782 jurisdictional areas around the world.[3] These churches look to the Bishop of Rome (more often referred to as the Pope), either alone or together with the College of Bishops, as their highest visible authority in matters of faith, morals, and church governance.[4][5] The reigning Pope is Pope Benedict XVI. The balance of the church community consists of an ordained ministry of priests and deacons, as well as the ordinary laity, and those like monks and nuns who live a consecrated life under a rule.

Alongside its primary mission to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments, the church also operates numerous social programs, institutions and ministries throughout the world. These include schools, universities, hospitals, and shelters, as well as Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities that help the poor, families, the elderly, the sick and others.[6][7][8]

As with the Eastern Orthodox and mainstream Protestants, the Roman Catholic faith is summarized in the Nicene Creed. Claiming to be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit in doctrinal matters, the church established or affirmed other doctrines through ecumenical councils following the example of the first Apostles. Catholic belief is detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.[9] Formal Catholic worship is ordered by means of the liturgy regulated by church authority. The celebration of the Eucharist, one of seven church sacraments, is considered the center of Catholic worship.[10] However, there are numerous additional forms of personal prayer and devotion including the Rosary, the Stations of the Cross, and Eucharistic adoration.[11]

According to Catholic doctrine, the origins of the Catholic church can be traced, via apostolic succession, to the Christian community founded by Jesus in his act of consecration of Saint Peter, considered by the church and many historians to have been the first pope.[12][13] Later Church history is intricately intertwined with the history of Western civilization. The church has affected and shaped the lives and beliefs of Christians and non-Christians alike for almost two thousand years.[14] When the Roman Empire fell, the church endeavoured to preserve Western civilization. The 11th century saw the Eastern Church split definitively with the Roman Catholic Church. Subsequent reunification of some of the Eastern churches with Rome created the Roman Catholic Church's Eastern Rite. In the 16th century, the Church underwent substantial reforms in response to the Protestant Reformation. Although the Catholic Church believes that it is the true church founded by Jesus Christ, in an apostolic constitution the church acknowledges that the Holy Spirit is active in Christian churches and communities separated from itself, and that Catholics are called by the Holy Spirit to work for unity amongst all Christians.[15]

Modern challenges and controversies faced by the Church include liberation theology as an influential school of philosphy in many countries, plus the issues of abortion, euthanasia, birth control and the ordination of women. In 2001, lawsuits emerged, particularly in the United States, claiming that some priests had sexually abused minors.[16] Ling.Nut (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it, I think it is superior and I wish you would make this edit to replace the lead - well done! NancyHeise (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I made the edit to replace it already. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's missing something rather important: the hysterical approach to homosexuality. Tony (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
That could be mentioned in the "challenges and controversies" sentence...mmmm OK will do. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

MoS compliance

Frustrating. No matter how often I peek back in here, I find the same errors repeated, over and over. How did "Catholic Social Teaching" creep in as a section heading, when I have made the WP:MSH adjustments more than once now? Stability, MoS adherence. Please fix and stay on top of these things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've come late to this article. I'll see what I can do. I'm just amazed it is even at this level. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Some sample citation cleanup needs: [3]

1. Cite news and cite web are used alternately for hard print sources like USA Today and New York Times, needs to be consistent; this results in inconsistent formatting, see 2c.
2. Full publication dates missing at times, review needed.
3. Generally, opinion editorial pieces should only be used to cite opinion, and should be attributed as such. The one I found seemed to be a duplicate source, not sure it's even needed ??

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Size check

Per WP:SIZE (50KB max recommended guideline on readable prose), per Dr pda's prose size script:

(Using Islam and Intelligent design for comparison, because there were some incorrect size comparisons made on this page in the past, using overall size rather than prose size. Overall size includes things like citations.)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I know we have discussed this with other editors throughout this process. I think the decision was that even though it is one of the longest articles on Wikipedia, considering the subject matter, eliminating any part of the article would make it incomplete. History section was much discussed at first FA nomination and many reviewers requested additional content which was subsequently added per their request making the article sufficiently complete to meet one of the FA criteria. Since no other organization on earth has a two thousand year old history, it is reasonable to consider that this article should likely be a little longer than others just for that reason.NancyHeise (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ideas for trimming:
  • see previous arguments for Origins and Missions section (I know you won't agree, but I thought I'd mention it anyway)
  • remove most of last paragaph in section Members of religious orders. Add the list of examples into the second paragraph in that section. I think the last paragraph is too detailed to this article.
  • Remove full quotation of Nicene Creed (see also Tony's comments at FAC)
  • The history section could probably be trimmed a bit. If you are interested in this, I can post a draft on a subpage.
  • I think a really thorough copyedit could trim a great deal. There is a lot of repetitive wording within paragraphs, and a lot of verbosity overall. I tried a first round of copyediting on the upper half of this article several weeks ago and shaved off about 4 kb of text. There is definitely room for a further copyedit to try to tighten the prose.
Karanacs (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the creed and moved the sentence or two about it to "Beliefs". I trimmed the Holy Spirit and another section about the Chrch which seemed out of place for an encyclopedia article. I moved them intact to the sandbox in case anyone decides I'm a cretin and wants to put them back.--Mike Searson (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind most of your ideas about trimming the article but I really think it is a huge mistake to eliminate the Nicene creed and then have anything to say about any part of Catholic belief in detail. If you are going to eliminate the creed then we should just eliminate the entire belief section which would really mess the aritcle up. I am going to reinsert the creed and I will try to help with all other efforts to trim. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, there is a link to the Creed within the article, as important as I think it is, I think a brief mention with a link is sufficient. It seems like we're reinventing the wheel with each section or subsection.--Mike Searson (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that about a week ago, the article Roman Catholic theology was created. My opinion is that most of the content about the belief system can be expounded upon there, with only concise overviews here (and wikilinks of course), with the main thrust of this article being about the institution (i.e., "Church"). I am not exactly sure in how much detail to describe its history here, as there is that article too, but by moving belief material out we allow ourselves much more wiggle room when it comes to article size. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through beliefs doing some significant trimming. I think the article will be useless without the section on beliefs to which the Nicene Creed is the most important part and should not be omitted. Whoever created Roman Catholic Theology can expand to their hearts desire on that subject there and I think it is a good idea, that does not preclude us from having a brief summary of those beliefs here which provides the huge service of having, in one place in the top article of Wikiproject Catholicism, the wikilinks to all other important Catholic articles. NancyHeise (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Currently at 68KB (11,000 words), 3KB less than pre-trim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me from looking at the FA Intelligent Design that Wikipedia guidelines on length are not cut in stone - there seems to be some flexibility depending on the article's subject allowing for an extended length. If this were any other subject, I might agree that it is too long but since it is the only organization on earth with a 2000 year old history, its own government, laws and is the one organization to which on sixth of the world's population belongs and believs the beliefs of, I argue that it is appropriate for this article to be longer than others otherwise it will not meet the FA criteria that requires it to be broad and comprehensive, not omitting important facts. If we cut something, we cut important facts. Trimming is an option but I think cutting out whole sections (is that called forking?) is not OK. NancyHeise (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Forking is bad, but summary style is good. That would mean having a child article (like Roman Catholic theology, and then summarize that article here. I also completely disagree that the Nicene Creed needs to be in this article in full; that should be quoted in full in its own article (again, as a method of implementing WP:SUMMARY). Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Because length is an issue in this article, it was the decision of editors on this page to put the entire Nicene Creed in here instead of commenting on it because we felt any commentary would be longer than just putting the Creed in there. Also, I did a little more trimming in History sections, it is down a few more Kb's. NancyHeise (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
There have also been at least 3 editors who have asked that the Creed be removed from the page. I don't think there is consensus on its inclusion at the moment. Karanacs (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I attempted to write something that would sufficiently address the contents of the Nicene Creed so I could eliminate it and make everyone happy. I was not able to write anything that uses less words than the Creed. If you dont have those beliefs somewhere on the page, it is incomplete and will get slammed by Catholics for not having it or at least mentioning those core beliefs. NancyHeise (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

History section trimming

I have a draft of the trimming of the history section at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/History Trim Draft. This has trimmed 11 kb off the size of this section without losing any important information (I believe). I think that the section on the child abuse scandals needs additional work, as it is way too long and too US-centric at the moment. Can you take a look there and see if the changes are acceptable? Karanacs (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As a side note: Everytime someone trims a section we end up with dead references. Be mindful of deleting references, particularly if it has a name, as it is more than likely being used somewhere else.--Mike Searson (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, I couldn't test that, though, without having the whole article, as some of the references are defined in the Beliefs section. If this version is accepted we'll do the ref cleanup when it gets moved over. Karanacs (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was not referring to yours, but edits to the article, itself. I modified the opening paragraph slightly on your version, made it a bit shorter and less choppy...let me know what you think.--Mike Searson (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I like the new opening paragraph. Make any changes you think are necessary. Karanacs (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I like Karanacs reworking of the the history section. NancyHeise (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Excellent work, all! :) Nautical Mongoose (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I moved it over already and there were no broken links, I checked the refs. NancyHeise (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

lead and body inconsistent: Could someone please reconcile?

My changes to the "Organization" section, which are merely a summary of the text there, read: "The worldwide church community consists of three groups: ordained members, members of religious orders (such as nuns, friars, and monks),".. but the lead says that the body is divided into two parts. Could someone please reconcile the versions? Note that if you change the "Organization" section to match the lead, then the "Organization" section will be self-contradictory.. so you'll have to make nontrivial changes to its text. Thanks, Ling.Nut (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed this. NancyHeise (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

rewrote "Church organization and community"

I rewrote "Church organization and community" as per WP:BOLD. I basically reorganized existing material and removed redundancies, but I added a sentence or two about the duties of priests. The latter seemed far more important to me than a list of all the other functions a priest can perform... those should be in the main article about the priesthood. I also removed some bits about what candidates must do (college etc.) as belonging in the main article.

I didn't touch the section about the laity, since I saw no organizational problems or redundancies... BUT.. I hope someone who is familiar with Catholic laity etc. can TRIM it. I was tempted yto do so.. but I was not sure I would be able to discern what was "major" and what was "minor"... [I was tempted to reduce the bit about tertiaries to the two words "including tertiaries" in a higher paragraph, for example.] Ling.Nut (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I like Lingnuts rewrite and I addressed the laity section trimming. NancyHeise (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Page size has decreased significantly to 118 KB - I think that is reasonable and would not like to see anything else get cut, I think it will really eliminate core material.NancyHeise (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Size

As I write, the article size is 116KB (the number on the top of the edit this page when you make an edit). I have copied and pasted this from the WP:Article size: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional breach will improve an article". I think that the page is of sufficient length now, it is concise without sacrificing excellent prose and core content. If we endeavor to trim any more, we will be sacrificing one or the other of these FA criteria. If we eliminate the Nicene Creed as has been suggested, we will get slammed by Catholics for not having this core material that is really difficult, if not impossible to say in fewer words. NancyHeise (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Nicene Creed

NancyHeise, I know you've been in the midst of battles demanding that it stay put. And, it is certainly essential to Roman Catholicism. But,unless I'm horribly mistaken, I don't think that the theology of the creed is unique to the Roman Catholic Church. The only line where there is a difference in understanding amongst creedal Christians is "We believe in one holy catholic ..." I actually think you can eliminate the actual text of the Nicene Creed. There is already an OK page on the creed with the actual text. I notice that you don't mention at all the 'Athanasian Creed'. I'm Anglican and that creed is part of our doctrine, although I've heard it but once in church. I'm certain it is also Roman Catholic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this (I removed the words ", an expansion of the Apostles' Creed," but... if you want it back in...) :

The Nicene Creed is an ecumenical statement of faith of the Catholic Church that sets out the core Christian beliefs of Catholics and many other Christian groups. The creed provides a brief statement of beliefs widely considered orthodox, which also serves as a rejection of beliefs widely considered heretical.[17] The original version was adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325, and has undergone several revisions since. The English translation that is recited at Catholic Sunday masses[18] was first published in 1975 by the International Consultation on English Texts (ICET).

Ling.Nut (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Lingnut's version would give the impression that the Nicene Creed was something patched together by all currently existing groups. Whereas the Creed was written by the Universal (catholic) church, and most breakaway churches have held on to it. I think the version must state that the Creed was developed by the catholic church as a definition of ITS beliefs, even if others share these basic tenets. Xandar (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem... you are right that people may not know that the First Council of Nicaea was a Catholic Church council... need an elegant wording... Ling.Nut (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
OK try this (above version edited to address xandar's concerns) Ling.Nut (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand why some people want to remove the Creed to make the page shorter in length but you dont understand that if you do that, then you have to supplement the beleifs section with some commentary about God the Father, creation, the virgin birth of Jesus, etc. All things that will take up more space than if you just leave the creed in there. The Nicene Creed is THE statement of faith for Roman Catholics - it is recited at Mass every Sunday as an integral part of the liturgy and I think the page would be so much less of an FA without it. I also think that Catholics would really slam the page if it makes FA without it unless there is significant expansion in the beleifs section to cover the things stated in the creed. The creed is more concise and it is a unique and important part of the page. I appreciate all of Lingnuts rewrites but I disagree with removal of the creed in favor of his rewrite on this one. NancyHeise (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You may be right. It just kinda looks fat and boxy sitting there — like a Volvo station wagon. Also long, as you said. But you do have a cogent argument in your favor. It... is probably not a question that will go away... other editors will probaly continue to disagree. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that as an encyclopedia, a Wikipedia article is an overview of the topic without dwelling on the details. Even though the Nicene created originated with the Roman Catholics, and is basic to their doctrine...it is soooooooo not unique that it is not informative. The section does not scream 'Roman Catholic'. It is too much detail. On the other hand, it is not an overview that presents the gist of Roman Catholic belief that is unique to the Church. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
We arent' supposed to present a gist of Roman Catholic belief that is unique to the Church, we are summarizing Roman Catholic Beliefs for which the Nicene Creed is the most core statement used at every Sunday Mass. We can't have a beliefs section on the Roman Catholic Church without it. I went to the bookstore today to find something that would adequately summarized the Nicene Creed. What I found was over five pages long. The section in the book began with the whole statement of the Nicene Creed and then each statement of belief had its own paragraph describing it in detail - I dont think that is what we want to do here. It is simpler to have the whole statement just like it is, in its little Volvo station wagon, happy and safe and wikilinked for the person who wants the detailed breakdown on another wikipedia page:) NancyHeise (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As somebody who is a Catholic, I don't believe that removing the text of the Creed would impact the article in any way. Firstly, the Creed is not unique to Catholic belief but is shared by multiple Christian denominations. Second, the Creed has its own article and specialized treatment in the Roman Catholic theology article in which we can refine and discuss how the Church applies the articles of the Creed. Frankly, I feel that replacing the text of the Creed with a brief mention of the stricter application of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" and also a statement that the articles are also defined in the Cathechism will suffice for our purposes. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How about:
"The Roman Catholic Church understands the Apostles' creed as the statement of baptism and membership of the Church, the Nicene creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith, and the Athanasian Creed as the statement of the Trinity."
Simple, but it would be completely alian to a non-Christian. Please also take a look at the Encarta article on the Roman Catholic Church. It does not specifically mention the creeds at all but does a very good job of explaing the doctrines and beliefs of the Church. Especially, in how the Church differs from other Christians. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think both of you don't understand what the article is supposed to be about. It is a definition of the Roman Catholic Church. The page is modeled after the FA Islam. When I went to the page on Islam, I wanted to know what they believed, their organization, history etc. Beliefs is core - tossing them will not in my opinion make the article better but useless. The Nicene Creed is the most concise summary we have that enables us to place the entire deposit of faith on the page without having to go into Catholic belief on creation, the virgin birth or any other thing already covered in the creed. I am trying to be sensitive to non-Catholics who, like I did with the Islam page, want to know what Catholics believe. Since there is a fair amount of misperception in the world on that issue, this article serves to eliminate non-Catholic ignorance of Catholic belief and all the other things. NancyHeise (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the situation now ...I think....and that this is a case of apples and oranges. Note that Islam and Roman Catholic don't quite equate. Islam is to Christianity as Sunni Muslims are to Roman Catholics. In other words, the scope of this article is too big. The definition of the Roman Catholic Church does not need to encompass universal Christian doctrines or beliefs. Now that I understand, I say, out it goes. If the doctrines are not specifically Roman Catholic, then it is redundant. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I lost my edit due to overlap, but that's exactly what I was trying to say. The article is supposed to describe the Catholic Church as distinct from Christianity in general, and the Creed is shared by Christianity in general. Also, Catholic beleifs need only be given a reasonably concise overview in an artle of this nature; there are other places were we can delve into the topic in more detail. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I dont like the new creed paragraph, it is really obscure and confusing. NancyHeise (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


I suggested in the first FA nom that a Belief article be created and a summary be placed here. Since then, someone created Roman Catholic theology, and I think it would be completely appropriate to keep the details of the religious beliefs in that article, with a broad overview here. That may also address concerns that I and others have had with the tone of this part of the article; it's been described as a "persuasive essay" and as "preachy". Would anyone like to mock this up (the Beliefs section in its entirety) so that we have something specific to pick through? Karanacs (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I will give it a try. The sandbox will be at User:Wassupwestcoast/sandbox/RCC rough draft belief. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw this sandbox and it is full of anti-catholic statements and inaccuracies. I do not support this work at all and do not welcome it on this RCC page. NancyHeise (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Right now, I think there is nothing anti-catholic in it. Nor is it in error. It is to build a very brief synopsis of Roman Catholic belief. Rather than edit warring (well, not quite), we can build up a consensus version. Every one, please visit it and hack away. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So as not to cause stress and trouble, I've placed the consensus building revision below and deleted the sandbox page. As you can see, the version is neither anti-catholic or full of errors. It is simply much shorter in length. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Tossing Beliefs Section

I would like to mention that tossing the beliefs section does not have consensus among editors if we were to look at the support and oppose votes on the FA page. Preachiness has sufficiently been eliminated and we are now left with core facts except that someone has now eliminated the Nicene creed. I am going to probably withdraw the nomination for FA and spend my time on something other than Wikipedia forever after if two editors can come here after all this work and consensus and decide on their own to eliminate the hard work of many editors and doing so at the cusp of an FA process. NancyHeise (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't go. I've been at this juncture before during FA. I know the incredible stress. It can be worked out. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I know this kind of stress as well. This article is worth working on and I see no reason why it can't be featured. No one is intractable here. We can come to a consensus. Hear corny Let's give peace a chance and see waving lighters/cell phones. Please smile. Awadewit | talk 03:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not tossing the beliefs section! I am trying to both gain concensus and reduce the size of the article. The belief section as it stands has 1, 800 words ...the length of a term essay! I have attempted to trime 'Beliefs', 'Creed', 'Spiritual realm and sin', 'Jesus and the Holy Spirit', 'Church' and 'Final judgment and afterlife'. This version - below - which comprises all the previous sections but is now under one sub-heading has been trimmed to 530 words.

Beliefs and doctrines
Roman Catholics believe in the authority of Scripture and tradition. There are doctrines and beliefs that distinguish the Church from other Christian churches. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains all Catholic beliefs which have been revised by major councils of the church throughout its history. The authority Jesus granted to Peter in the Gospel of Matthew is understood by the church to pass along to each successive pope through apostolic succession. In the light of these promises, the Catholic Church believes that it is guided by the Holy Spirit and, through divine revelation, prevented from teaching error in doctrinal matters. The infallible teachings of the Pope form part of the sacred magisterium, which also includes the pronouncements of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium". The Roman Catholic Church recognizes three ancient and universal Christian creeds. The Apostles' creed is the statement of baptism and membership of the Church. The Nicene creed is the fundamental statement of the Christian faith. The Athanasian Creed is the statement of the Trinity.

The Church’s understanding of sin can be summarized thus. Tempted by a fallen angel, the first humans, Adam and Eve, committed the original sin, which brought suffering and death into the world. People can be cleansed from this original sin and all personal sins through the sacrament of Baptism. Sinning is the opposite of following Jesus, robbing people of their resemblance to God while turning their souls away from God's love. Some sins are more serious than others: the lesser venial sins and the graver mortal sins. Mortal sins are deeds that break a person's relationship with God.


Penance helps prepare the faithful before they receive the Holy Spirit in the sacraments of confirmation and the Eucharist. According to the Catechism, the Holy Spirit "restores to the baptized the divine likeness lost through sin". United with God, the believer allows God to live and work through him, producing the fruits of the spirit—namely love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that receiving the Eucharist forgives venial sin.


Although the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches that it is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church founded by Jesus, it believes that the Holy Spirit can make use of other churches to bring people to salvation. The work of the worldwide Church includes social teaching which is based on the words of Jesus and commits the faithful to the welfare of others.


The Church understands the final judgment as distinguished from a particular judgment that occurs at the moment of death. There are three states of afterlife in Catholic belief. Heaven is a time of glorious union with God and a life of unspeakable joy that lasts forever. Those who freely chose a life of sin and selfishness, were not sorry for their sins and had no intention of changing their ways go to everlasting separation from God called hell. The church teaches that God points out the way that leads to life but does not force anyone to choose that way and no one is condemned to hell without freely deciding to reject God and his love.

Please hack away at this version to see if the 'Doctrine and beliefs' section cannot be tightened up. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My feelings about using this suggestion are that people who want to know what the Catholic Church believes, like I wanted to know Islam, are going to be shortchanged by a shell wikipeida article that puts size limitation considerations above quality. The version of the page that I approve of is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Catholic_Church&oldid=198526847

I would appreciate if the person who eliminated the Nicene creed would please replace it until the FA process is over and a consensus of more than just three editors that also includes some Catholics agrees.NancyHeise (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Ownership of articles is policy: . Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Theres a difference between WP:OWN and seeing a bunch of people who don't seem to know much about the subject randomly ripping out the core and most important things which are part of the subject, especially when the version Nancy put hours into was perfectly fine. If you've actually read the WP:FAR page, the people who are Catholics or have studied the religion and KNOW what the core beliefs are also support Nancy's position that randomly ripping out important parts of the belief system is unacceptable. Especially when other articles such as Israel, a large size article is allowed to be FA without busy boddies ripping out the most important parts of it.
If this is the FA process, perhaps the process is worthless and it should just stay as a GA which is actually informative of Catholic beliefs. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Hi Yorkshire. There are several folks... respected editors... who agree that removing the entirety of the Creed is the best way to go.. BUT... having said that, as i said before, I think doing so without persuading the objectors was beyond WP:BOLD. I too think it should be reinstated until the topic has been further considered. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Nicene Creed should stay, and it should provide the framework for explicating Catholic belief. Its antiquity and authority within Catholicism make it highly relevant, it is in extremely compact form -- WP is simply not going to do a better job of summarizing Catholic belief. Is there any good reason for tossing it? The.helping.people.tick (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not simply in-text wikilink to English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use or simply Nicene Creed (or both)? The text of the creed (with variations) would be one click away for the reader, while satisfying the objections to its full inclusion. Just a thought. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Respecting consensus, I eliminated the creed, mentioned and wikilinked it and incorporated its contents into the other sections while addressing FA reviewers comments on the FAC page. NancyHeise (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


I finally reread the Beliefs section, and I think it is missing one key point. I think the first sentence of that section should make it very clear that the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian denomination. I would suggest adding a sentence that can be as simple as "The Roman Catholic church is a denomination of Christianity." Otherwise I feel like we're leaving out a whole lot. Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing MoS issues

I left some sample edits. Why is there a red-linked template in Demographics? Is that article being written? If not, that should be removed from the template at the top of the section.

Further information: Global organization of the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholicism by country

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There's an external jump in an image caption, and why is Gospel italicized here ?

Noting here that someone deleted the copy of the text that I had placed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the sentence should be: "The church believes that it follows these mandates by preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments." No reason for ital, and the link is wrong -- should be to the Good News, not the Bible or the written Gospel. Will make that change in a sec. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's supposed to refer to the Bible, that's not what it links to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Roman Empire not capitalized in the section heading? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

More: Why are Early Middle Ages and High Middle Ages not capitalized in the section headings? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed these issues. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Daily look: how did a parenthetical insert with an incorrect wikilink make its way into the lead ?

The primary mission of the Catholic Church is to spread the message of Jesus Christ (see Good_news_(Christianity)) and to administer the sacraments.

Also, what is the source for this statement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

CC vs. RCC

  • This edit by Wassupwestcoast removed "Catholic Church" from the text, and represents a POV. There was a ridiculously long discussion about RCC vs CC in the article name and in the text. Unless Wassupwestcoast wants to start the RCC vs CC wars again, this edit must be undone. Since intervening edits prevent an automatic "undo", this must now be reversed by hand. Gimmetrow 04:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely non-NPOV to call the Roman Catholic Church by its self-identification of Catholic Church because those outside the church do not see it as exclusively the 'Catholic Church'. There are other 'Catholic Churches' that are not Roman. That is the gist of the debate. The Roman Catholic Church is one of other Catholic Churches, even if it choses not to see them. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And refusing to allow that self-identification even occasionally is POV. Do you intend to revert your changes? Gimmetrow 04:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Why would you occasionally revert to a non-NPOV designation? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Because refusing to recognize that self-identification is blatant POV. Gimmetrow 04:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not a MOS guru by any means. If we don't have a section that deals with capitalization of religious terms, then we need one. Does one exist? "Eucharist" or "eucharist"? Everyone seems to agree it's OK to capitalize Mass... etc etc. This.. I don't wanna jump in and get a wider community discussion of the topic while this FAC is in play, 'cause it's just drag things on to infinity. But after this FAC ends one way or another, I think the issue needs to be addressed. If the text doesn't fit what the community decides, then changing it would be a trivial matter. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents:

Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth, original sin or transubstantiation.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
OK & thanks, but that still leaves us with problems, esp. regarding CC v. RCC, but also with Mass. Mass... to me it's easily confused with "gathering" or "mass". I'll fix Eucharist.. and others I see... Ling.Nut (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
grrr... what about Stations of the Cross? Is it a title? From the relevant article, for example, if we change "The object of the Stations is to help the faithful..." to "The object of the stations is to help the faithful.." it just doesn't seem to make sense. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
MOS:CAPS refers to doctrines. For the other things, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) might be a useful model. Gimmetrow 05:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The main MoS is Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents. But it doesn't help. Off hand, I'd demark phrases with single quotes and no cap; thus, 'stations of the cross'. But, I haven't found MoS for that yet. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) This whole terminology thing becomes a big twisty bowl of noodles when it comes to religious topics. OK, so I'm on "church" v. "Church" as per the Latter Day Saints MOS. But there are still many details to be worked out. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is a nightmare. It might be worth going to a standard newspape style guides and see what they recommend.For example,
Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had resolved this issue in my en masse caps edit, but this is what I believe should be done:

  • 1) The names of specific prayers should be capitalized (Rosary, STations of the Cross)--> proper nouns and such
  • 2) Specific ceremonies and sacraments for the same reason

These aren't just 'thelogical concepts', so I would think that the MoS doesn't strictly apply here. Also, see WP:IAR and WP:UCS Nautical Mongoose (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I just went through and changed about a hundred instances of "Church" to "church". To me that passes the sniff test. However, I tend to agree with you about the names of the prayes.. Rosary, Stations, etc. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
See The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down for titles, so again I agree with Stations :-) But is eucharist the title of a thing, or a doctrine, or... ? To me, the sacraments are lowercase because they are also thought of as actions in other denominations.. e.g. baptism etc. ? 06:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Umm, then Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) applied. Also, The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down hasn't passed any serious review. It certainly isn't GA. But I assume you're joking :-) As for eucharist, I guess it is lower case by MoS. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you really want to get technical, I suppose I can mention that Catholic sacraments all have specific prayers attached to their impartation,so they're actually like "prayers". n.n; Nautical Mongoose (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism has 239 members, but no Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Catholicism). :-( Ling.Nut (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a long established concensus on the RCC vs. CC thing, if you wish to built a new one, then attempt to before changing it. Changing it also makes the article needlessly longer... which is pretty funny since certain people seem so insistant on making it smaller, evgen atthe cost of ripping out the core beliefs. Also, its The Eucharist. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If y'all are going to argue CC vs RCC, be thorough and be sure to advert to this argument as well, not just the ones archived at this page. The simpler term "Catholic Church" should be used unless the more specific term "Roman Catholic Church" is required for accuracy. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Large revert

I've reverted the massive revert. Just not on. Bad form. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I put the page back into the form it should be for the FA reviewer to see what is being nominated for FA. This version includes the latest polishing edits by SandyGeorgia, Lingnut, NauticalMongoose, TheHelpingPeopleTick, and my own. I reinserted the Creed since this is part of the FA nomination that not all people are happy to toss. If anyone is going to make major eliminations or changes could you please wait until the FA reviewer makes a decision? Thanks NancyHeise (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, regarding the Nicene Creed. If a Wikipedia user who is not Christian comes to the page and sees a summary of beliefs that expands upon certain issues and then just has a wikilink to Nicene Creed, they will not know it is the most important part of the church's beliefs. Removal of the Creed makes the page an incomplete summary. The Creed isnt even that long and its importance is so great that it should be the first topic and should be plainly there for a user to see without having to go fishing on another Wikipedia page that is not FA. NancyHeise (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I support nancy in reverting the article to the one actually put up for nomination. Please lets have major edits agreed here first. Xandar (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed information

I removed the following sentences from "Jesus and the Holy Spirit" because it was tangential to the topic of the section. Saving it here for easy retrieval: Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive the Eucharist without having received absolution in the sacrament of Penance. The Catholic Church also teaches that receiving the Eucharist forgives venial sin. The church encourages the faithful to receive the Eucharist as often as a person who is in a state of grace desires. The sacrament of confirmation can be conferred only once in a person's lifetime.[19] Awadewit | talk 15:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No explanation of what a cardinal is

I was surprised when "cardinal" wasn't mentioned in the hierarchy. cardinal is mentioned repeatedly in the article, but not explained. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not surprised. A cardinal is a title of great honor and preeminence granted by the pope. They are referred to as "Prince of the Church" and serve the pope as chief advisors. Oftentimes they are archbishops residing in an archdiocese or a resident of Rome at the vatican where they serve as prefect of one of the key curial departments. Their chief duty until they reach age 80, is to elect the pope in a Papal Conclave. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
But how is the "title" different from the.. office, I guess? .. of bishop/priest/deacon? Why isn't it in the hierarchy? Honorary or something? It certainly doesn't seem honorary.Ling.Nut (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to explain. I guess hierarchy-wise, they would be the same as a bishop of arch-bishop (depending what their title was when they were created as a cardinal), it's an honorific, even though they do have the special duty as papal electors they are not higher than the office of archbishop.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cardinals, monsignors and the pope are all bishops. I'll see what I can do to make this more clear in the article. NancyHeise (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all Monsignors are Bishops. The majority of monsignors are priests.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your right and I am wrong on that one - we just had 15 priests elevated to level of monsignor in my hometown archdiocese (Miami). NancyHeise (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, not all cardinals are bishops. For a contemporary example, Avery Dulles. Might want to check Cardinal (Catholicism) article as well the Catholic Encyclopedia article, etc. for the history [4]. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

U.S.-centric

This article is U.S.-centric:.

  • Child abuse scandal in the U.S. is described in detail. What about the rest of the world?
  • Aboriginal people. No mention at all about contemporary relations with aboriginal people. In Canada, the Roman Catholic Church is involved in a large residential school scandal with First Nations people: see Ottawa, Catholic church renegotiate residential school payout.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The abiriginal people article is not a significant event to warrant mention in the article. On a daily basis, I receive the Catholic News Service postings of news regarding the church throughout the world. Yesterday the Archbishop of a city in Iraq who had been kidnapped was found dead, in Venezuela there are monasteries that were confiscated last year, in other parts of the world, there are hospitals and charities who have been forced to dissolve because of irreconcilable differences over legal issues. Some priests and bishops have been jailed for years in China as well as churches destroyed there too. We have selected the most notable events to place in the article, not every minute detail. As far as the sex abuse scandal, the article mentions that it is worldwide. It makes mention of the US because that is where most of the lawsuits occurred.NancyHeise (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to this, so it gives importantly, the overall global figure instead of just the US one.
As of 2004, the vast majority of worldwide sex abuse cases have been in the United States where 4 percent of all priests who served there from 1950 to 2002 faced accusations, though the global figure is 0.02%. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Deposit of Faith

FYI: In the Roman Catholic Church Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition form what is known as the Deposit of Faith. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you making a comment about this paragraph in Beliefs? "...in Gospel of John, Jesus states, "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth".[30] According to the church, the Holy Spirit reveals God's truth through Sacred Scripture or the Bible, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterium. Those beliefs regarding prayer and worship handed down through the church beginning from the time of the Apostles are known collectively as Sacred Tradition.[31] Magisterium refers to the teaching authority of the church and includes certain teachings of the pope that are considered infallible. It also includes the pronouncements of ecumenical councils and the Catholic bishops in union with the pope who may at times condemn false interpretations of scripture or define truths.[32]"

It is referenced to The Essential Catholic Catechism by Dr. Alan Schreck, professor of Theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville quote from page 16 " The Catholic Church has always emphasized that the ultimate source of revelation is not a book (the Bible), or a thing (tradition), or even a human group or person (the Magisterium or the pope), but is God himself, particularly in the person of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit reveals God's truth through the channels just mentioned. It is also the Spirit of God who guides the church through these channels into the fullness of truth." This new source that supplements the entire beliefs section is a non-Catholic church published source with a declaration from the church that it is free from doctrinal or moral error (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur).NancyHeise (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just mentioning another Catholic belief that should be mentioned in the article which is not. Any Catholic about to be Confirmed in the Church would have heard of it. Just another sign of the weak referencing.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thats a really harsh comment. I didnt think it was weak referencing. What do you suggest? You have complained about referencing but have provided no recommendations. I changed one of the sentences to incorporate the term "deposit of faith", it now reads - "Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are collectively referred to as the deposit of faith that is in turn interpreted by the Magisterium, a term that refers to the teaching authority of the church and includes certain teachings of the pope that are considered infallible.[32] " You could be a little nicer when making recommendations. NancyHeise (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I try to improve the article and then 90% of what I input is removed to the point when the only thing kept are the references and they no longer support the original statement being made; why should I waste my time doing anything else for this incarnation which does not engage the reader because the prose is flat or keep them interested because the essential knowledge is stripped away? When someone is writing an article about the Catholic Church and omits the basics or glosses over them, or when they are brought up...act like it's brand new to them...what am I expected to deduce from that? I guess I'm just an idiot for expecting an article about the Catholic Church to contain basic tenets of the Faith or even mention of Francis of Assisi or Thomas Aquinas as opposed to a paragraph on Henry VIII. I've pointed out the basic shortcomings on the discussion page. If you want to brush up on the Deposit of Faith start here: [5]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Mike, the deposit of faith is a key theological term, but in an article dealing with all the dimensions of the Church, I'm not sure that omitting it constitutes a shortcoming. In light of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, it might make sense to define the deposit of faith, but I don't know that this article needs it. Likewise, Aquinas has had a huge impact on the theology and history of the Roman Catholic Church, but omitting his name does not automatically constitute a shortcoming. Likewise with the sparse attention paid to architecture, which has been repeatedly pointed out by another editor. To be comprehensive, the article would be too big. So make your arguments here about what should be included and why, be bold in your edits, and don't assume it's obvious to everyone that what you think important makes the cut in this article. A better place to start for the deposit of faith is Dei verbum 10: "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed." The.helping.people.tick (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct, and if there was a way I could totally remove my name from ever helping to contribute to this piece I would do it. I still, for the life of me cannot understand how a supposed comprehensive article about the Roman Catholic Church fails to even mention the Apostle Paul, the Roman Missal( and for that matter the GIRM), the Tridentine Mass (what's dismissed as the "Old Mass"...you want history, how about the Mass said for over 500 years!?!), rules for Communion, veneration of Holy Relics, the penal laws, Catholic religious martyred by mohhamedans( or by the nazis in WW2),Pope Pius X opposing modernism or changing the rules for reception of the Eucharist, John XXIII trying to help the Church find her place in the modern world, the Irish monks of the Dark Ages who preserved ancient texts both sacred and secular so they were not lost forever like so many other texts were, Church impact on Art( and architecture, music, film, and literature),Corporal and Spiritual works of Mercy, Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Spirit, the three Eminent Good Works, the Cardinal Sins, the Cardinal virtues, the 3 Munera (Munus docendi, Munus sanctificandi,Munus regendi), sacred vestments, Holy oils, the bells, incense, scapulars, medals, 7 sorrows (and joys)of Mary, 7 sorrows(and joys) of Joseph, the rosary ,the Incarnation, the Indult, plenary Indulgences, moden schismatics and break-away groups: SSPX, SSPV, Conclavists, etc. Nor how can the following "fact" be included in the article:"Some Catholics who call themselves Traditionalists objected to the new Mass called Novus Ordo Missae which used vernacular language in favor of the old Mass called Tridentine Mass that used only Latin. Today, both forms of the Mass are celebrated with the vernacular being more common." It's for one thing not encyclopedic and it sounds like something you'd tell a child who asks "What's the Novus Ordo mean?" . Not to mention, when something is sourced, it's removed and the source is attributed to something that was not said. So, give me one good reason why I should edit boldly, look up the sources, format them, type all of this in...only to have it edited beyond recognition and I don't mean by a simple rephrasing of my poorly chosen words...but 180 degrees of what was being said? I guess if you want a watered down and stripped away version devoid of any real substance of what could potentially be the best work on wikipedia; then that's what you'll get...I set my ambitions higher than that. I don't want a mediocre article that satisfies a "size criteria" this article should be featured for all the right reasons...not because someone is juking the stats on it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ

Dear Mike, I am not aware of any sentences that have references that do not support the content. If you are aware of any, please let me know. I was not in favor of the huge trimming process either but on Wikipedia you have to go with consensus of editors and thats what was happening at FAC. Honestly, I thought the article was better after the trim, I think it is better now than when it was first nominated. While I know you want all the sacred bells, incense and all that, I think that will detract from the article. The article should communicate the essence and uniqueness of the church, not every minute detail of the faith. Doing so would require a separate article only on Beliefs and another on all the other issues you raised in your paragraph above. A summary of a vast subject requires eliminating peripherals to focus on the core. NancyHeise (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, its in the Roman Empire section, I addressed it on the talk page at FAC. The other is about primacy of Rome, etc (might be the same section). Bells, incense, etc may seem a bit much, but it is an area where the RCC is unique. For example: Bells are rung at the consecration, because there is a plenary indulgence for saying, "My Lord and My God." at each of the three instances during the Tridentine Mass and two in the Mass of Pope Paul VI when the Consecration of each species takes place. It was started to help people follow along with the Latin. To me, that is the type of information we need to capture in this article. Not flowing paragraphs about how the bells are made or what material they are made from, but maybe someone wondering what the deal is with the bells or the sanctuary candle or paschal candle means. Also the Incarnation of Christ, the Roman Missal, Corporal Works of Mercy, or what version of the Bible is authorized are not minute details. They're definitely appropriate for this article and were not mentioned even in passing.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
If you will read the beliefs section, the corporal and spiritual works of mercy are there, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, I just added and the fruits were already there. I did not list the seven deadly sins but I think the sin section covers clearly what sins are in a language non-Catholics would understand. If you want to change it I'm not going to stop you. I dont think the stuff about the history of the Mass and the Tridentine controversy belongs in the Mass section but in the history section and putting the information about when the bells ring is really way too detailed for this article, it should go into the separate wikipedia page on Catholic Mass. The fact that the Mass is celebrated in various languages including Latin and has different rites can go into the Mass section but any controversy should really go into history or you are going to detract from the readers understanding of what the Mass is which is more important than the controversy. I would like to know exactly what sentence in Roman Empire does not match its source. The reference to the Tobin book is supported by what Eamon Duffy writes in Saints and Sinners and I can re- reference it if that is the one you are talking about. Please tell me because you have the Tobin book, not me. NancyHeise (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
If the Works of Mercy are there, it is a recent addition, because they were not there last night or this morning. I would say the same with Fruits of the Holy Spirit. I'm not even talking about the "Controversy" of the Latin Mass (the only real controversy is that liberal American bishops lied about its status and slandered its adherants for 30 years). There was NO mention of the Tridentine Mass at all in this article until I put it there and it subsequently vanished; again that Mass has nothing to do with language. If you do not have the Tobin book, how can you say "Duffy supports it"? Again, it's addressed on the archived FAC discussion concerning two refs from the Catholic Encyclopedia. We can continue this verbal fencing or we can work to fix this article which has become a train wreck. I'd rather work on fixing it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you are thinking of something the Tobin book was referenced to other than what I am thinking - the Roman Empire section? Works of mercy have been there for a long time under the heading Church in Beleifs. I just added the mention of the seven deadly sins and wikilinked it in the Spiritual Realm and Sin area. I want mention of the Tridentine Mass - it was an important controversy in the church that deserves mention - why dont you put a few sentences in the history section after Vatican II?NancyHeise (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


cites for journals

I added this one. edit its format to your taste:

  • Dinges, William D. (1987). Ritual Conflict as Social Conflict: Liturgical Reform in the Roman Catholic Church. Sociological Analysis, Vol. 48, No. 2 , pp. 138-157. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I commented out my own cite. It seems the issue may be far deeper than I understood, as per comments on talk and the FAC. I invite others to find more appropriate cites. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Vatican / Vatican city

Why isn't there a bit more about the Vatican? There is only this half-sentence in relation to the pope:"governs from the Vatican in Vatican City, a sovereign state to which the pope also serves as Head of State". The Vatican is pretty unique in Christendom and to non-Catholics and non-Christians is - with the pope - the thing that defines Roman Catholic! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the Church and in the interest of staying on topic and size considerations, we placed a sentence explaining the Vatican and wikilinked it to its own Wikipedia page for the reader who wants to know more. The Vatican does not define the Roman Catholic Church, it the place of its headquarters and is a topic of such size to warrant its own wikipedia page as well as Roman Curia. The section where it is mentioned is about the church community. Within that section there are a variety of subjects like the Vatican that could be expanded easily and I would be happy to do so if there werent such concern about the articles size and the fact that several editors have already gone through on a vast trimming exercise as a result of consensus of editors. NancyHeise (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a bit of a consequence of something I noted earlier - the lack of much information about the Church as an organisation. There's a lot of information about the faith, but I think there does need to be more about the organisation, which includes the Pope, the cardinals and the Vatican - surely it's odd that there's no section on the Pope? Perhaps this proceeds from the article having been remodelled based on Islam; a good model for most purposes, but Islam is not a single organisation with a single (temporal) head. The Roman Catholic Church is, but this article doesn't really cover that, apart from the rather brief section recently added as an introduction to the 'Church organization and community' section. Even the sections which do cover it do so almost entirely from a spiritual rather than a temporal perspective - the section on ordained clergy, for example, covers their mission and what sacraments each may administer, but not, for example, how they are appointed or trained.
I think I'd suggest merging Demographics with Church organization and community into a section about the church as a body, and adding to this more content about the organisation of the church. TSP (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Missions information in the history section

I've brought up a few times that the emphasis on the missions in the Americas was too heavily weighted to the end of the mission period (the Californias). I'd like to briefly expand the mention of the missions in the 1500s. Here is my proposal:

Through the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries European missionaries and explorers spread Catholicism to the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania. Pope Alexander VI awarded colonial rights over most of the newly discovered lands to Spain and Portugal.[20] In December 1511, Dominican friar Antonio de Montesinos openly rebuked the Spanish authorities governing Hispaniola for their mistreatment of the American natives, telling them "you are in mortal sin ... for the cruelty and tyranny you use in dealing with these innocent people".[21] Although King Ferdinand enacted the Laws of Burgos and Valladolid in response, enforcement was lax. The issue did rouse a crisis of conscience in 16th century Spain. An outpouring of self-criticism and philosophical reflection among Catholic theologians, most notably Francisco de Vitoria, led to debate on the nature of human rights, and the birth of modern international law.[22]

In 1521, the first Catholics were baptized in what would become the first Christian nation in Southeast Asia, the Philippines.[20] The following year, Franciscan missionaries arrived in what is now Mexico, although they did not begin large-scale baptisms until 1537, when Pope Paul III determined that the indigenous peoples did have souls.[23] Over the next 150 years, the missions expanded into southwestern North America.[24] The native people were legally defined as children, and the priests took on a paternalistic role, often enforced with corporal punishment.[25] In India, Portuguese missionaries and the Spanish Jesuit Francis Xavier evangelized among a Christian community which had been established by Thomas the Apostle.[26]

new sources:

  • Jackson, Robert H. (2000). From Savages to Subjects: Missions in the History of the American Southwest. Latin American Realties. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, Inc. ISBN 9780765605979.
  • Samora, Julian; Simon, Patricia Vandel; Candelaria, Cordelia; Pulido, Alberto L (1993). A History of the Mexican-American People. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN 9780268010973.

Karanacs (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy brought up on my talk page that it is common for new converts to be referred to as "children". In this case, though, the book made it clear that this was a legal definition defining their rights in New Spain as well. Karanacs (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont have problem with insertion of these facts especially since you are the source expert here. I just wanted to make sure there was not misinterpreting the term 'children' which can mean 'spiritual children' in the Catholic church when referring to a new convert who is not educated in the faith, a person who is new to Christianity and has not been through many trials because of their faith. NancyHeise (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I've made this change in the article. Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC Close

I would like to thank all of the editors who took the time to come examine the article and give their advice, much of which resulted in article improvements. Although I am very disappointed the article did not receive FA status and disagree with some of the reviewers concerns, especially about sourcing to the Barry book or National Geographic book which are acceptable per WP:reliable sources ( the National Geographic book is a compiled work of over 18 top scholars and University professors from top universities), I appreciate their different viewpoints, help and advice. I found it interesting that the history section was trimmed to address size issues only to then find reviewers coming to the page who wanted more expansion. Suggested improvements to this article by one FA reviewer were improving sources to the history section, adding more information about church work in the world today, and mentioning different practices of Catholics around the world. I will be working to address these issues hopefully with the help of others and I thank the reviewers for their efforts. NancyHeise (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Children's Books as Source Material

These sources need to be replaced as soon as possible: Behind the Mask: The Life of Elizabeth I, Asia and the Pacific World Explorer, Medieval Life, and Medieval Times to Today.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have Medieval Life, Medieval Times to Today, and Asia and Pacific and I can work on replacing those (I have to do my laundry first) over time. I dont have the other book and dont know who added that. NancyHeise (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization of Beliefs section

I reorganized the beliefs section - it flows in a more logical manner now and identifies the areas where specific sacraments are discussed. We need to add discussio on the Sacrament of Holy Orders to the Community section under Ordained members and add some sentences on sacrament of Matrimony to Laity. Also, we need to add Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick to the Beliefs section somewhere - Final Judgement and Afterlife? Maybe a new heading for that section could be Anointing of the Sick, final judgement and afterlife. What does anyone think?NancyHeise (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Old Testament

In the section Jesus and penance it is stated that the Jewish Tanakh is the same as the Christian Old Testament. This is wholly inappropriate in the article on the Roman Catholic Church, since it includes writings in the Old Testament that are not included in the Tanakh. 11:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I added wording to account for discrepancies in the two, thank you for pointing this out. NancyHeise (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Bible

Why are there only a few passing mentions? This looks like a Protestant parody of Catholicism. 11:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest? The bible is mentioned in the first paragraph of the beleifs section discussing the deposit of faith and in the hisory section discussing the Vulgate. Please be specific about what more we should be saying about the Bible. NancyHeise (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Article size issues

I think that one of the important lessons we need to learn from the recent FAC failure is that this article's size should be above 100K in order to be comprhensive. The Wikipedia guidelines approve of article sizes greater than 100K if the subject matter warrants it. Since there are many subjects on Wikipedia, FA's, that have sizes greater than 100K and Roman Catholic Church is such a huge organization with a two thousand year old history, I think it is reasonable to expect this article's size to be above 100K. The efforts to trim it helped tighten it but it also eliminated information that subsequent reviewers and previous reviewers wanted to see included. I suggest inclusion of all facts from now on and arguement with future reviewers who suggest trying to meet the Wikipedia 100KB rule. NancyHeise (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what FAC you were reading, but there is no 100KB rule; the issue is explained at WP:SIZE, and the guideline is 30 to 50KB of readable prose, although up to 65 KB could probably be justified for this article. If you don't get accustomed to measuring (with Dr pda's script) and discussing readable prose size instead of overall size, as explained at WP:SIZE, you won't be looking at the right number. The bulk of readable prose is in History, not Beliefs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not clear to me by reading WP:SIZE what you click to get the readable prose size. I see that it does not include footnotes and images (a huge part of this article). Is it something we calculate ourselves - can anyone help me on this one? NancyHeise (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I copied this response from Sandy's usertalk page ::It's explained at WP:SIZE; have you read the page? It tells you how to calculate it manually, or you can go to Dr pda (talk · contribs)'s userpage, where he lists the prose size script that you can install to your monobook. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

NancyHeise (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You left a note for Dr pda (talk · contribs) asking him to install the prose size checker on this article; it's not installed on articles, it's installed in your monobook, which only you should edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Peer review changes

Here is a new article about how to make the most effective use of peer review: WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. An extended peer review (at least a month, to get adequate feedback) is best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we are going to wait until the page is expanded to include more facts that other reviewers have recently brought up to make the page more comprehensive. I would like to definitely have another peer review when we are done addressing these and sourcing issues brought up at the FAC. NancyHeise (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave the link (above) because just requesting a peer review often isn't enough; you can get a more effective peer review if you actively recruit knowledgeable reviewers, as explained at the bottom of that page (for when you're ready ... although in this case, one of FACs most experienced reviewers had indicated the article wasn't quite ready for FAC yet). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not ready for FAC yet after seeing that reviewers comments. She did a great job reviewing the article and I appreciated having her come see the page and spending the time to give her comments, although a couple of them I did not agree with elimination of the creed. Thank you for providing the link. I will use it when we are ready again which may be a while. I need a wikibreak after that last FAC! NancyHeise (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Article Size

The article size was a tremendous issue at FAC and currently the article's readable prose is 61. SandyGeorgia said it could possibly be OK for an article like this to be 65 but after that it would have to be split up. Let's put more info into the aritcle like the Tridentine issue (under Vatican II and beyond in history section) that Mike was concerned about and maybe something more on the church charity and missions around the world as suggested by the last FA reviewer Adewaite (not sure if thats spelled right). I think the beliefs and community sections are for the most part OK unless you see something I am missing. Then we have to replace the four sources that were deemed not OK because they were written for children (which made them particularly useful in writing a brief summary). NancyHeise (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What we should also focus upon is trimming the history section. Much of what is discussed in the beginning portion is probably better mentioned in the Christianity article. I'm not particularly familiar with the sources used, so I'm not sure how much help I'll be, but anyways that was a suggestion of sorts. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Nautical, when I first came to the page, two admins were telling me that the Roman Catholic Church did not originate at the beginning but several hundred years later. I consider not putting the early church history from its inception a sort of anti-Catholic POV that is not supported by the historical record. We have carefully put the information into the Roman Empire section and sourced it to the most reliable sources recommended by Wikipedia just for this reason. The Roman Catholic Church existed as an entity from the beginnning and St Peter was writing letters to other churches from Rome, as its first bishop. The Roman Empire section has subsequently been through two FAC processes and any changes made were OK'd by the FA reviewers. NOne of them made mention of its elimination. NancyHeise (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That, unfortunately is a common opinion. I, too have thought about stripping that part of the history out, but know its importance. I listed one of the prayers said at the Tridentine Mass on Vassyana's talk page...it's a prayer that has existed for over 1,000 years and mentions 6 of the first 10 popes. The section needs a little more help, but it is important to the article, although I wonder if it could be incorporated into the origin section?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh...point made n.n; I had no intention of adding POV or anything liek that to the history section. I was just concerned that the beginning portion might be slightly repetitive of the analogous information in Christianity. I do agree that the RCC can be traced very far back (see my user page). I'm just wondering if we can place more emphasis on how the specifically "Catholic" structures of the modern church had their origins in those times (the Council of Jerusalem is an excellent example). Sorry for the confusion; I was just mulling it over is all. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The history is basic to the church, and all other encyclopedia articles on Roman catholic Church cover the entire history from the beginning. Once again this seems like the pressure to POV skew the article by filling it full of the US scandal, inquisitions and other negative matters, and compensate for that by removing the important material on history and beliefs. I notice that the abuse section has grown to a large full paragraph, which is disproportionate, but okay so long as it is well-balanced, but if people want negatives in the article, then they have to be in proportion to all the rest. If the article is too long, the negatives have to be cut in proportion to all the rest. Xandar (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin and Mission, minus the sheep

At the end of the Origin and Mission section we have

Following his death and resurrection, Jesus appeared again to Peter and asked him to "feed" and "tend" his "sheep".[28] The church believes that it follows these mandates by preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments.[29] As an organization, the church also administers social programs throughout the world. Through Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities, Catholic schools, universities, hospitals, shelters, and ministries to the poor, as well as ministries to families, the elderly and the marginalized, the church applies the tenets of Catholic social teaching and tends to the corporal and spiritual needs of "the sheep".[11]

Seems a bit sheep-heavy to me. The first mention of sheep doesn't seem to add much, and the second is kind of cheeky, and hints that the church only serves its own. So I am eliminating sheep:

The church believes that it follows these mandates by preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments.[29] As an organization, the church also administers social programs throughout the world. Through Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities, Catholic schools, universities, hospitals, shelters, and ministries to the poor, as well as ministries to families, the elderly and the marginalized, the church applies the tenets of Catholic social teaching and tends to people's corporal and spiritual needs.[11]

Sound good? The.helping.people.tick (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


POV reminder

I've seen a lot of comments in the last few days disparaging the negatives in the article and (sometimes) accusing other editors of having an anti-RCC POV. It is not POV-pushing to insist that the article actually mention negative aspects of the Church. The article needs to discuss all of the major things that the RCC was intimately involved in that changed the world, whether those things were good or bad, and we have to put all of those things in perspective. It's not enough to say that "the RCC built cathedrals" (as was done in a previous version) without explaining that those cathedrals were the centers of learning and social life for a geographic area and that the artwork created for the cathedrals had a huge impact on culture in the time period (and even in modern times). It's also not enough to say that "there were a few inquisitions and here are there names" (as was done in a previous version), because that doesn't tell the reader that people acting in the name of the church did very bad things. We can't cover every instance of times that Catholics were persecuted without also mentioning that Catholics did their share of persecutions. The article absolutely must present both the good and the bad in the RCC's history, and it must do so in a neutral manner. Ignoring, minimizing, or phrasing all of the negatives in a positive light (or disparaging the critics as one of the scandal examples above did) is a pro-RCC POV. We all need to make sure that we are looking at this article in as neutral a manner as possible; present the facts about each issue, put it in historical context so that the readers can make up their own minds about it, and then move on. Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It does seem, however, that there can be legitimate disagreement among editors regarding what constitutes, for example, undue weight. I have never said that this article should not mention, e.g., the sex abuse scandals. But putting it in the lead seems like giving it undue weight to me. Relevant background, perhaps, is that I read more medieval works than newspapers (and I read plenty of newspapers). This affects my historical perspective. Compared to Western Schism or Spanish Inquisition, Roman Catholic sex abuse cases diminishes in significance to the point where it seems silly to put it in the lead (unless there is a presumption that recent controversies need to be mentioned?). The.helping.people.tick (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Point very well taken; legitimate disagreement is expected but some of the language above was starting to alarm me. In my opinion, recent controversies should be mentioned in the lead (albeit extremely briefly) just to keep the article stable (so that the rest of the world doesn't try to put them in). Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
<sigh> ok.  :) Actually, the way it is right now isn't so bad. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It IS POV to insist that ONLY the Catholic article be filled with negatives, while not insisting on that for all other groups. That is why I challenged Lingnut to make the same objections and alterations on the Islam page. We'll see if it happens. I am quite happy with some negatives being discussed and given their proper weight along with the rest of the historical and faith information. However I am not happy with overemphasis, and mentioning a regional scandal whose height was in 2002 in the lead of the worldwide Catholic Church article IS overemphasis and not in line with other articles. Southern Baptist Convention does not mention segregation in the lead - or in the article. Islam does not mention Islamic terrorism or subjection of women in the lead (or the main article.) Either ALL articles do as some here want, or none. Once we have US child abuse in the lead, then someone will want the Inquisition and the whole of the black legend there too. What I am saying is that ALL groups have bad things in their closets, to insist that these are high-profiled ONLY in the case of the Catholic Church IS heavily POV. The article is not here to regurgitate some people's anti-catholic prejudices. Xandar (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I think you are missing the point. The suggestion is to briefly mention controversy(ies) in the lede to promote article stability, not specifically because it promotes historical balance (which I, like you, would take issue with). However, perhaps the stability of the lede in Islam offers some hope to this article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Your argument smacks of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. NPOV applies to an article by itself, not to a swatch of articles. We should be concerned only with Roman Catholic Church and whether this article reflects a neutral point of view. You have identified numerous issues with the Islam article, and you are more than welcome to try to fix those yourself, notify the appropriate wikiprojects, or bring the article to FAR (it probably deserves to go to FAR because it doesn't look in great shape). Just because that article has certain problems doesn't mean they should be repeated here. And did you actually read the references above? This was not a regional scandal, and I am puzzled as to why you keep referring to it in that way. I personally think the lead should have a single sentence that says something along the lines of "The RCC has been the subject of several controversies since the 1960s, including its stance on homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, as well as revelations of child abuse by a small number of priests." (there's a proposal above that says this in a much prettier manner, but that's the gist of it) Karanacs (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the links. you obviously didn't read my post on them. Xandar (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I found the Islam article to be a very good, factual article that helped me understand the religion. Please consider that Wikipedia is one of the only places where you can go to see a one page summary on topics like that. We need to be respectful of all the religion articles on Wikipedia because they help eliminate people's ignorance. The media does not do that, blogs do not do that, it is unique to Wikipedia to require the articles to present a subject fairly while also including all criticisms. I don't think we should be so upset about having mention of the sex abuse scandal in the lead, especially if it give some perspective on the issue like percentages which I have never heard the media report - my religious education students (the children of Catholics!) thought that 30-40% of our priests were pedophiles! If there is some piece of information that is needed in the lead it is something to educate people to eliminate that misconception. Burying mention of the sex abuse scandal in the body of the article without mentioning in the lead will not only make the article an ineffective tool of information, but will make it appear to be a POV and will never pass FA. FA is important if you want people to trust that the information they are reading is reliable. NancyHeise (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Further note: Southern Baptist Convention is only rated as a B class article and Islam, an FA, does mention Osama bin Laden, al-Quaeda, terrorism and Jihad - all wikilinked for the reader who wants to learn more. Acts performed by adherents to a religion or a church do not always mean that it is condoned by the church or religion. I would hate to have to list all the sins of Catholics as part of the history of the church. Likewise, Southern Baptists who lynched people were not following a doctrine proclaimed by their church organization. Evidently, they werent following Christ either. We need to mention criticism that was directy a doctrine of the church - like crusades and inquisitions and failure to remove pedophile preists because they thought they had been cured with counseling. I personally dont want a propagand page on RCC, I want a factual article that will give ignorant readers information that will eliminate their ignorance. Just like the FA Islam did for me. I still dont like the religion of Islam or condone their policies of Jihad but at least I know something about what they believe so when I speak to my sons friend, I can be respectful of his or her customs. There are also a substantial number of Jews at my sons school. When you live in a multi-cultural place like South Florida, it helps to know a little about all the differnt cultures here. NancyHeise (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Islam article and this article, in that the Islam article is simply about a faith; it is not about a single coherent organisation with a single (temporal) head. This article is partly about Roman Catholicism which is a faith (as part of Christianity), but also about the Roman Catholic Church which is an organisation. As such, while it is possible to argue that Osama Bin Laden is not in any sense working for Islam even though he happens to be a Muslim, I don't think it's possible to say that the Catholic priests accused of abuse were not working for the Roman Catholic Church, regardless of the Church's views on their actions. You could say that their actions had nothing to do with the Roman Catholic faith; but they are still relevant to the Roman Catholic Church as an organisation, as they were carried out by people working for that organisation. TSP (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
TSP, there is a difference, but not so much that the Islam article shouldn't have a sentence about the bloody trail that Islam (not just Osama) continues to leave in the world. I think it should lose FA status on that basis. But this isn't the place to discuss that, I suppose. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Traditionally Jesus"

The references make no mention of the founder being "traditionally Jesus". This implies that someone else may have founded the Catholic Church. If so, who?

The reference says "The Church was founded by Jesus himself" --WikiCats (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well...I place no stock in it, but there are some who would say that Jesus never meant to start a church, or even that there was no Jesus. So, they would say the Church was started by Peter...or by Paul. Others would say that Jesus (if he existed) was, in fact, a disciple of John the Baptist; so that it was John who really got the whole thing started. As for the Catholic church specifically (as opposed to the catholic, or universal church), some doubt that Peter was the first Pope; so they would say that Linus founded the Roman Catholic Church.
But, these are all fringe theories, and I place no stock in them. Of course Jesus existed...and founded the Church.Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There were numerous discussios of this in the archives. The "traditionally" was added because some scholars object to tracing the RCC origins to Jesus (Christianity, yes, RCC, no). This was brought up at the first FA nomination and I believe the "Traditionally" was added after that as a compromise. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
We have sources to back up these very important claims. In Wikipedia, the top sources are books written by professors who are experts in the subject discussed and is published by a university press. The "Traditionally Jesus" was reached because one of our University press books says the church was founded by Jesus in his earthly lifetime, another says something else that is more obscure because he doubted the historical record. This is all revealed in the Origins and Mission section. "Traditionally Jesus" was the most accurate statment taking into account the statements of both of these top scholars in Roman Catholic History. I noticed someone changed the info box to say "Peter" as the founder and "Rome" as the city of origin and left the references next to the new content. The references do not support those changes and I reversed it. I have the references. They are available in most libraries.NancyHeise (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Tridentine Mass

Mike Searson edited the Mass section to include the history of the Mass making mention of the emergence of different rites. Is everyone OK with this? I was wondering if anyone thinks that this should go into the history section since it was a controversial issue that faced the church since Vatican II with a group of people called Traditionalists. Are there any non-Catholics who like Mike Searson's version of this section as opposed to what it was before his changes today? I think his version is confusing, and I am Catholic. We dont give the history of any other church sacrament and I think it is inconsistent to do this in the Mass section and is too much detail. I know his reasons for doing so but cant those reasons be satisfied by putting info into the history section instead? NancyHeise (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if it confuses you. I make mention of only one Rite: The Roman Rite. Broken into three stages...Tridentine (when it was codified at the Council of Trent) pre Tridentine (of which we have very little original information) and post Tridentine: Mass of Paul VI. The Mass is central to Catholicism, to do a hatchet job on it or push it off somewhere else would be a mistake. This is sounding alot like WP:Idontlikeit. In the grand scheme of things the Mass has more importance to this article than 3/4 of the history section.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike, you should really care if it confuses me, a Catholic, a convert who did not grow up in the Catholic Church and does not know Latin or go to a Tridentine Mass. I do not understand the section as you have rewritten it, it is not elementary enough to make a person of normal intelligence (like me) know what the Mass is. No where does the section say that Jesus asked his disciples to "do this in memory of me". I think that is a central thing to have in there. NancyHeise (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok, now I understand you...I didn't realize that I snipped that section...I'll work it back in tonight.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Further reading

In our sources for the article, we must use all good and reliable texts. On Wikipedia, a further 'reading list' is not recognized as a 'source' list. Any 'necessary sources' should be in the Notes / References section and found as an in-line citation supporting the relevant bits of text. If not, then by definition the source is not necessary. However, a 'further reading' list is not a list of sources. It is a resource for the Wikipedia reader who wants to go one-step further than this article. What is the next best text to read that covers Catholicism for the naive reader? This is what 'further reading' lists are intended to do in print encyclopedia. Certainly, no one beginning their masters in theology course is going to be reading this article and locating a pertinent monograph from our 'further reading' list to flesh out their thesis. Our most likely reader is an adolescent: like many of our editors and admins on Wikipedia. I suggest that the 'further reading' list be pruned down to about ten recently published popular works that are readily available in public libraries. No need to buy these books. I'd say nothing older than 1995 and limit it to the big publishers that any public library would carry. Right now there are are books listed going back to 1947 and some from obscure publishers. I suspect some are not available at most city public libraries. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt this list of 10 books is controversial. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Johnson, Kevin Orlin (1994). Why do Catholics do that?. Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-39726-6.
  • Keating, Karl (1995). What Catholics really believe, setting the record straight: 52 common misconceptions about the Catholic faith. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. ISBN 0898705533.
  • Crocker, III, H. W. (2001). Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church: A 2,000-Year History. Prima Lifestyles. ISBN 0-7615-2924-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Brighenti, Kenneth (2003). Catholicism for dummies. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Pub. ISBN 0764553917.
  • Pope Benedict XVI (2005). Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. USCCB. ISBN 1574557203.
  • O'Gorman, PhD, Bob (2006). The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Catholicism, 3rd Edition (Complete Idiot's Guide to). Indianapolis, IN: Alpha. p. 432. ISBN 1592575358.
  • Brighenti, Kenneth (2007). Catholicism Answer Book: The 300 Most Frequently Asked Questions. Sourcebooks, Inc. p. 320. ISBN 1402208065.
  • Dubruiel, Michael (2007). The How-To Book of the Mass: Everything You Need to Know but No One Ever Taught You. Huntington, Ind: Our Sunday Visitor. p. 272. ISBN 1592762697.
  • DeTurris Poust, Mary (2008). The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Catholic Catechism (Complete Idiot's Guide to). Indianapolis, IN: Alpha. p. 336. ISBN 1592577075.
  • O'Collins, Gerald (2008). Catholicism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 144. ISBN 019954591X.
Curiously using things like the catechism came under a lot of criticism in FA review. I think it was unjustified, because that is the best source for the Church's beliefs. The Crocker book is a much needed antidote to some of the anti-catholic stuff doing the rounds, but as a major source it is likely to be criticized because it is a polemical book, designed to present a very positive view of Catholicism. The trouble with respect to Church History is that there are not a lot of good, easily available sources for the whole span of history. I used the Dorian Kindersley History of the Christian Church for a lot of my references, but they were later removed - I presume because some people were asking for more Catholic-specific histories. I think, however that good, general Church Histories can be good sources for facts about the Catholic Church. Schaff (available on the net at CCEL) is a good protestant church history. He is rather anti-catholic, but generally quite fair. However old sources were criticized as well at FA, so that could knock that out. Xandar (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Price, Matthew Arlen; Collins, Michael (1999). The story of Christianity. New York: Dorling Kindersley. ISBN 0-7513-0467-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) is a good resource and was written at an adult level. It orginially came out under the imprint of DK Adult. In this further reading list I did include both the 'Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church' and 'The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Catholic Catechism'. I think that would be the most informative for the naive reader. I think at the university level, people seems to like McManners, John (2002). The Oxford history of Christianity. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0192803360. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) as a generalist resource. It is listed on the Christianity further reading list. I think - my understanding - that criticism of using general Christianity sources is that the overlap with the Chistianity article. After all, this article is about the Roman Catholic Church. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation

reform and serpent need a disambig Randomblue (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Done!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Number of Catholics and Priests Rises". Zenit News Agency. 2007-02-12. Retrieved 2008-02-21.
  2. ^ "CIA World Factbook". United States Government Central Intelligence Agency. 2007. Retrieved 2008-02-28.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference sees was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Paul VI, Pope (1964). "Lumen Gentium". Chapter 3. Vatican. Retrieved 2008-03-09.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference SandSp1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ "Statistics on the Church's Mission Work". National Institute for the Renewal of the Priesthood. 2003-02-27. Retrieved 2008-02-09.
  7. ^ Barry, One Faith, One Lord (2001), pp. 98–9
  8. ^ Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1911), p. 80
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference cat was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Barry, One Faith, One Lord (2001), p. 71
  11. ^ Barry, One Faith, One Lord (2001), pp. 122–3
  12. ^ Tyler Hitchcock, Geography of Religion (2004), p. 281, quote "Some (Christian communities) had been founded by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church."...Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome"
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference Norman11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Orlandis, A Short History of the Catholic Church (1993), preface
  15. ^ "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 2 paragraph 15". Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 1964. Retrieved 2008-03-09.
  16. ^ Bruni, A Gospel of Shame (2002), p. 336
  17. ^ Richardson, The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology (1983), p. 132
  18. ^ Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes(1910), p. 24, 56
  19. ^ Barry, One Faith, One Lord (2001), p. 58
  20. ^ a b Gentzler, World Explorer, Asia and the Pacific (2003), p. 88
  21. ^ Woods, How the Church Built Western Civilization (2005), p. 135
  22. ^ Woods, How the Church Built Western Civilization (2005), p. 137
  23. ^ Samora et al, A History of the Mexican-American People (1993), p. 20
  24. ^ Jackson, From Savages to Subjects: Missions in the History of the American Southwest (2000), p. xiv
  25. ^ Jackson, From Savages to Subjects: Missions in the History of the American Southwest (2000), p. xiii
  26. ^ O'Connell, Church Throughout History (2002), p. 204
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_14&oldid=1078749765"