Talk:Catholicism
|
|
| Contents |
Fresh page
The last talk page was getting so long as to be unwieldy. For previous discussion concerning the disputed section "Criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church," see the last version of the talk page. SWAdair | Talk 02:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please remember NPOV
Dogface, your edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Catholicism&diff=0&oldid=6052699) of September 21, 2004 seem to be aimed at promoting POV, not removing it. "Rome claimed an authority" captures the fact that Rome said it, and that it is not necessarily true just because Rome said it; is there any actual reason to change it to the less neutral "Rome alleged special authority"? Did you realize that your edits put the same information twice into the sentence that follows? The sentence already said that the church of Antioch was older than the church of Rome; why was it necessary to add that information a second time after an mdash?
In short, I question the necessity and wisdom of these edits. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Actually I think the article is much more NPOV than it used to be (when it was pure catechism a while back). However a hang-over seems to be that all the external links are Roman Catholic. Can anyone propose appropriate links to other groups calling themselves "Catholic"? --BozMo|talk 13:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, it may be true that this article has been less NPOV than it is now. The point that I'm making which that doesn't address is that the edits I mentioned (changing the factual "claimed" to the slanted "alleged", for example) are a step in the wrong direction, away from NPOV. I think they should be changed back. Of course, if someone has a defense of these edits, that shows how they fit with NPOV, please bring it up here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I changed "alleged" to "claimed," as the world "alleged" carries with it an implied value judgement. The article provides enough information that readers can make their own judgement, without us leading them there. I can see placing additional emphasis on St. Peter having founded the church at Antioch, since the church at Rome claimed special authority derived, in part, from St. Peter. It might read better, though, if that sentence were broken into two sentences. SWAdair | Talk 03:56, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Language in need of clarification by rephrasing
The article says:
- All of the preceding groups, excepting non-Anglican Protestants, consider themselves to be fully and completely Catholic. Each of them, excepting the Anglicans, considers itself not only to be completely Catholic but to be exclusively Catholic, even if a different group happens to use the term "Catholic" in its name.
I would normally understand the statement that a church is "exclusively Catholic" to mean that it is Catholic and excludes all tendencies that conflict with Catholicism. That means the same thing, as far as I can see at this moment, as "completely Catholic", but whoever wrote the above obviously thinks "completely" and "exclusively" mean different things. The words after the phrase "exclusively Catholic" make me suspect that what is meant is that each of those groups claims that only it is Catholic and the others are not. If that is what is meant, it need to be rephrased to make it clear. Michael Hardy 20:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article says "While Rome claimed special authority descending from St. Peter and St. Paul, who died in Rome and were buried there, Constantinople had become the residence of the Emperor and the Senate." I think that sentence should read "...St. Peter and St. Paul, who are alleged to have died in Rome and were buried there..." Or better still: "...St. Peter and St. Paul, who according to tradition, died in Rome and were buried there..." To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Peter and Paul died in Rome.
Removed external links
I've removed the following material, from the "Additional reading" section:
1 Brief organizational history of the Christian Church : http://www.freivald.org/~jake/church-history/index.html http://catholicity.elcore.net/MacCaffrey/HCCRFR_TOC.html 2 Evolution of the term "Catholicism" : http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/whycath.htm http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/What_Catholic_Means.html http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/cath.htm 3 "One, holy, catholic, and apostolic" http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/chmark.htm 4 The Roman Catholic Church http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/roman.htm 5 Other Catholic groups [Jesus established only One Church]: http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_46.htm
and from the "External links" section:
http://www.traditionalromancatholicism.com/saintsonthedogma.html http://www.traditionalromancatholicism.com/thechurchofchrist_2.html
So far there has been no discussion of the content of these links and no word on whether they reflect a consensus viewpoint or a disputed POV (with the note of "Jesus established only One Church", the latter seems more likely.) They should be added back in only if and when regular contributors can check their content and see which they are; if they contain information we would not accept as NPOV in the article itself, we should mark the link accordingly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And add to that the following links:
6 Distinctive beliefs and practices (i.e., Catholicism) 6.1 Beliefs 6.2 Sacraments http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/index.html
-- Antaeus Feldspar 02:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just removed it again -- Chris 73 Talk 03:54, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
-- Seems the external links are getting too long. Perhaps web sites with double and sometimes even triple entries should be edited to one only?
Catholic and China
What triggered this gritch? [1] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4423845.stm)
Merge notice
The merge notices must come down. Catholic, Catholicism and Roman Catholic Church are separate ideas that can stand alone as separate articles. The problem we find is that these articles have overlapping information. The solution is not to merge them but to rewrite the articles correctly so that pertinent information is found in the article it belongs to. Further discussion on Roman Catholic Church. --Gerald Farinas 04:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Beliefs
I don't like the following phrase:
"Most of the Roman Catholic Churches share certain essential distinctive beliefs and practices. The Anglicans differ among themselves on these matters."
"Most of the Roman Catholic Churches share" is wrong. It is all of the Roman Catholic Churches" or most "catholic Churches".
It must be decided whether the beliefs section is supposed to be give the Roman Catholic beliefs (as the title parantheses suggest) or on a broader scale (as the inclusion of Anglicans suggests).
Str1977 08:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I removed "Roman" from "most of the Roman Catholic Churches share", for the reasons given above. Str1977 22:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
first line assumes 2nd definition
I removed "as the worlds' largest Christian denomination" from "Catholicism as the worlds' largest Christian denomination, has two main ecclesiastical meanings, ...". This phrase assumes the second definition, i.e. that the term is really referring to the Roman Catholic Church. -- Chris 02:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Eucharist
I have reverted Chanting Fox's revertion of an anonymous editor's definition of the Eucharist. The version added in by the anonymous editor does reflect general Catholic beliefs on the topic. The version put in by Chanting Fox does not. It isn't a matter of POV but an accurate representation of Catholic belief. In so much as it is POV at all, it is the POV of the organisation being described, not the person who did the edit. The only inaccuracy was in the distinction over adoration and worship, which is something strongly associated with Roman Catholicism and less strongly with general Catholicism. I have changed the wording of that line to reflect that. FearÉIREANN
\(talk) 20:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)