Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Catholic Church. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Comment for next FAC

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

A few main issues with this article that are keeping it from FA status:

The division of the history between the first and last sections; needs to be integrated, ruthlessly subdivided and organized, and ultimately farmed out. This needs to pack the highlights of 2000 years of history into about one screen shot. This "mission" part of the section needs to be rethought.
Insufficient recognition of the historical and geographic contingency of the remaining sections. The church didn't always believe the same things and those beliefs are not held homogeously, etc. As a major subpoint of this: there needs to be some reference to the diversity of the RCC throughout the world, maybe a map that shows the number of catholics by country in a section that links to a subarticle "RCC around the world" (I think thats the wiki-convention).
Too few daughter/sub-articles. For a topic this big, probably every section or subsection should have at least one sub-article. That's just the only way the article is going to be able to present all the additional information it needs to without becoming too long. People are going to use this article to locate much smaller topics that fall within the subheading of the RCC; the easier this article makes that for them, the better it will be. To do this I would recomend looking through RCC categories and making sure all key articles are linked somewhere in the text of this article, and probably spinning off of the content currently in this article.
Assessment of the impact of the church from the perspective of a non-believer. Think: art, economics, law, politics, etc.

Just my two cents. Great work so far. The way that articles like this (for mammoth topics) become featured has as much to do with the content that they organize and link to as the content they contain. Savidan 05:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points.

The History section is a HUGE compromise. It has to contain many of the topics that various editors insist should be covered in this article, and therefore to achieve balance and due weight, must deal in equal detail with equally important, but perhaps less well-known or controversial historical matters occurring at the same time. The problem with cutting it is WHAT to cut without raisng controversy or unbalance the article. That's why we've settled on the current length. The problem with moving this material to sub-articles is that articles dealing with various periods of the history of the Church don't really exist, and again would raise the question of what would stay in the main article.
Referencing to the Regional Church is a good idea. Though basic beliefs are uniform throughout the Church, with the exception of syncretic offshoots, which aren't part of the church anyway.
Daughter articles. yes. Where they exist and are GOOD.
Impact on the non-believer. Another good idea. Xandar (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes interesting points but I dont agree with most of the suggestions. We do not have a map of the RCC throughout the world. We used to have one but it was eliminated for some violation of Wikipedia policy so we replaced it. It would be nice to have it back. The History section is the result of much labor and compromise between many editors and reviewers. I do not favor any elimination of this or farming of this section since it also serves a dual purpose of containing all criticism of the Church in a manner that is recommended by Jimbo Wales. Assessment of the impact of the church on the non-believer can be a separate article that is referenced in the See-Also section. I do not favor inclusion of this in the main article as it could be quite a large section that attracts much criticism and opposing viewpoints and will not facilitate the article becoming FA but actually prevent such a goal. Any commentary on the evolution of church beliefs is already addressed in the first paragraph of Beliefs section. Any commentary on how many Catholics believe what is really going to be speculation and something that would not add to the encyclopedic nature of the article. We do have a statement in Demographics saying it is unknown what percentage of Catholics are practicing or in agreement with Church beliefs. This sentence goes on to say that the church is growing especially in Asia and Africa.NancyHeise (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The impact on the nonbeliever stuff should be included in this article (at least mentioned) in the history section. This includes the church's impact on art and architecture (which was finally added), but there is more that could be included (such as the church's huge impact on European politics). This stuff is likely more important than a whole paragraph on the English reformation and arguments about whose persecutions were worst. Please note also that Savidan is just the latest to bring up the fact that the history section is split into two pieces - Origins and Mission and History - and that the split doesn't make sense organizationally (plus it adds length). Karanacs (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The church origins are something more than just history in a history section because it is something that is disputed as evidenced by these talk pages in previous times. Before we came to the present origins section there were two admins on the page saying the church did not even come into being until hundreds of years after the historians were saying it came into existence. We placed the origins and mission into its own section to sufficiently address this criticism. It is also the most logical place for the discussion of church origins which is then logically followed by missions since the two are related. It is more logical to place origins in the same paragraph as the church mission than to remove origins and place into history. While I respect Karanacs opinions, we disagree on this point. NancyHeise (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :I know you disagree Nancy, but there have been several people now who have come to this page uninvited and made the same suggestion to remove that section (not the information, just the separate section). There is no reason why the information can't be placed in a more approriate section (the history section) rather than stand by itself at the top. The current organization is confusing readers, and I suspect that at least some FAC reviewers will oppose because of it. Karanacs (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

To further address Karanacs comments. The discussion on English reformation reflects the top historians we have used as references. You had asked for the information on persecutions and we ended up with the present situation in response to searching for answers in our sources. I think you were trying to balance the article away from what you thought was a pro-Catholic point of view by having us put more information about Catholics persecuting non-Catholics but what happened was that the actual historical record supported the opposite. Catholics were non-beleivers in the Protestant religion and it is included in this article - politics and all. The entire history section is a commentary on that exact subject - how the church interrelated with politics of various governments throughout history. What other effects on non-believers can we include that is not already included? Muslims and Jews are covered in the inquisitions, Cathars are there too. Arianism is also covered as well as the evangelization to the colonies around the world. This is all about the impact of the Church on non-believers and the stories surrounding those encounters. I do not understand what else we can say about the church's impact on non-believers. NancyHeise (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My point has been that the article focuses too much on persecutions and too little on the other things the RCC has done that have impacted large chunks of the world (like the calendar). I don't have the time or energy to do the research necessary for this one, but I think there could be more said about how the Church influenced politics and law. This, and the church's effect on art, is touched on a bit throughout the history section but could be fleshed out or worded better to better reflect the impact. I don't think the history section has quite achieved the balance it needs to give a total picture of the church (not NPOV, necessarily, but the proper inclusion/exclusion of material to give a good look at what the church actually accomplished). I'd love to see a lot more eyes looking at this article critically and helping Nancy with research, I just don't know where to find them. Karanacs (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I think the impact on non-catholics being talked about is things like contributions to law, art, science and architecture. I think that might be a good (short) section, but it would need quite a bit of research on the refs. etc. As far as the "origins and mission" section goes, it does jar, but the alternatives are not very workable. If we put origins in with History then information on the Church's origin gets buried in the middle of the article, where it will be hard to find, and this is important information that does need to be near the Top. If we move History to the top to merge with Origins, that will make the article far too top-heavy on history, with other important matters that many people will want to access, in the bottom half of the article. I don't really see a way around that problem except to have the two sections. Xandar (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Origins section leads into Mission which leads into Beliefs. This is a logical progression of ideas that flow into each other well. I do not agree that this jars at all with anything. History section is appropriately at the end of the article after the "meat" of what the church "is" has been discussed in the preceeding sections. When I looked at the history section again, discussions of persecutions of Catholics are appropriately discussed in the Reformation area where its all about the wars that came about as a result of the Reformation. I do not agree that any changes need to be made to the article in History. It has been extensively reviewed may many top people at Wikipedia ad nauseum. It is referenced to the top sources Wikipedia requires. It contains wikilinks to appropriate daughter articles for the reader seeking more details, including art and architecture and law. If we attempt any fleshing out, we will immediately make the article too long to even be considered for FA. It is maxed right now. NancyHeise (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad my comments have sparked this much discussion. My major point is that a few daughter articles are going to have to be created before this article is going to even be able to be written as a FA. I think that you will find this is the only way to maintain balance/compromise as well as an acceptable length. I also did not mean to imply that it would be easy. Writing a FA about a big topic is much harder than writing one about a small topic. Monarchy of the United Kingdom is the best example that I can come up with for the moment, although this article has the benefit of being contained in a smaller temporal period. Savidan 18:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Having daughter articles is not an FA requirement, even though this article has many. What other daughter articles do you suggest creating? Maybe we'll consider those for the next project. NancyHeise (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A little compromise on "Roman" Catholic?

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I know this isn't anywhere near at the top of the urgency for this article, and I know it's been discussed numerous times, but Megmerrigan's edits have me thinking (un unhealthy habit!). Since the church does officially just call itself "Catholic Church", is there a way we could (1) keep the article title and intro the way it is, but (2) replace most of the other instances of the name "Roman Catholic" with just "Catholic" throughout the article? The way we have it, "Roman Catholic" is mentioned numerous times throughout—not just in the beginning. It feels almost as clunky as repeating the phrase "American Civil War" over and over again in its article, even after it's established that we know which civil war is being referred to. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not supposed to be Roman Catholic throughout the article, someone went through and did this without coming to the talk page first. A consensus supports just using "Catholic Church" or "Church" where appropriate throughout the article and I invite anyone to make these changes to help get the article ready for FAC. NancyHeise (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you indicate where this consensus is documented? I haven't been active on this talk page in almost two years but I remember that there was not enough of a consensus to support "Catholic" over "Roman Catholic". --Richard (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please read the past two FAC's and this talk page for all discussion on the topic. Also, please note that in most instances on the page we were asked by a top FAC reviewer to use the word "Church" capitalized when referring to the Roman Catholic Church. We do not spell out the entire name of the church throughout the article. NancyHeise (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

Latest comment: 16 years ago116 comments19 people in discussion

To address the concerns of User:Megmerrigan:

The contention that 'Roman Catholic' is a pejorative term employed solely by Protestants has been examined here several times, and found to be false - I'll dig out some of the past debates. In fact, the church itself seems to find the term inoffensive, and uses it when it is useful to avoid ambiguity (for example, in ecumenical contexts), or when it is significant to note the church's Roman (that is, in communion with the Bishop of Rome) nature. Some examples:

"Titular Churches of the new Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church", from last November.
The joint international commission for the theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.
The Anglican Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission.
The encyclical Humani Generis, in which section 27 begins "Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing."

(all links to the Vatican website). Elsewhere, my local diocese, Hexham and Newcastle, heads its website with "Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle". I don't think that the church itself views the term as an offensive one.

The history of the term is a complex one. The Oxford English Dictionary has:

The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed.

A description which the Catholic Encyclopedia says 'is in substance correct', though argues about some details.

So, what term should be used on Wikipedia? Wikipedia has a number of concerns. One is lack of ambiguity - people should be able to unambiguously find the article they are looking for, and know what it is when they have found it. Catholic Church is undoubtedly the most common name for the church this article concerns; on the other hand, the term is also used by other bodies. Another is neutrality; if there are competing claims on an issue, Wikipedia is bound to report all significant claims, but side with none.

The position that has generally been taken on this page is that using the name "Catholic Church" does not necessarily constitute a claim to solely constitute the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - if it was, Wikipedia should not use it, as that would be a non-neutral usage. However, the term can be an ambiguous one: many other bodies outside the church to which this article refers use the terms "Catholic" and "Catholic Church" - most obviously in the Nicene Creed, in referring to themselves as part of "one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", but sometimes more specifically - I think that many in the Roman Catholic Church may be surprised to find out that Affirming Catholicism and the Society of Catholic Priests are in fact Anglican organisations. In articles such as Catholic and Evangelical Catholic, it would be hopelessly confusing to refer to the church headed by the Pope as the "Catholic Church", as well as giving a biased impression by implying the incorrectness of some views (for example, by referring to "people who views themselves as Catholics but are not part of the Catholic Church").

It is the case, though, that "Catholic Church" is the most common name of the body to which this page refers, and also that that term most often (but not always) refers to this body. Wikipedia needs to make it easy for people looking for information on this church to find it, but also for people looking for information on other meanings of the term to find that, without implying that either usage is correct and the others incorrect.

The compromise that Wikipedia has largely come to is that 'Roman Catholic' should be used first, in situations where there might be a chance of ambiguity, but that 'Catholic' can then be used freely as long as ambiguity is not caused. Similarly, this article is located at Roman Catholic Church, as the least ambiguous term, but Catholic Church is a redirect to it with a note at the top of the page taking users to Catholic Church (disambiguation) if this is not what they were looking for.

I hope you'll be able to come here and debate your perspective on the matter; but I hope I've shown that Roman Catholic Church is not an offensive term, and is not viewed by the Church as such; in previous debates, I think there have been about as many Catholic as non-Catholic voices in favour of the current situation. TSP (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the (albeit small) offense goes to non-Latin Rite Catholics. Byzantine Rite Catholics, for example, are in communion with Rome but do not appreciate being called "Roman Catholic". That being said, I'm not suggesting renaming the article. You said: "The compromise that Wikipedia has largely come to is that 'Roman Catholic' should be used first, in situations where there might be a chance of ambiguity, but that 'Catholic' can then be used freely as long as ambiguity is not caused." If you Control-F search this article, "Roman Catholic Church" appears over and over again, even after the introduction. What about shortening these later appearances to "Catholic Church", since the introduction already establishes which church is being talked about? -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- There used to be a section about the different meanings of "Roman Catholic Church". Byzantine Catholics often use the term to refer to the part of the church which uses the Roman rite. I'm not saying this needs to be in this article, but it could be said somewhere. Gimmetrow 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

- - The Terminology section was always a tortuous and confusing section, though, so we're probably best without it.
  - It is certainly true that some people hold "Roman Catholic" to apply only to the Latin Rite; but it should be recognised that this isn't the meaning with which the Church uses it - I'm reasonably confident that when the Joint international commission for the theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church convened, including on the Roman Catholic side bishops from Greece, Lebanon and Romania, it didn't mean to speak only for the Latin Rite; and that when Pope Pius XII wrote 'If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ"', he did not mean by using the word 'Roman' that Eastern Catholics were not part of the body of Christ.
  - I don't see any problem with changing 'Roman Catholic Church' to 'Catholic Church' in most of those cases. Speaking for myself, I tend to find uses of derivative terms - "Catholicism", "Catholic" - a little more likely to be ambiguous than those of the full term "Catholic Church" - for example, if someone referred to "the Catholic Church", I'd be pretty sure what they meant; if they said "Catholic faith", I might have to ask - so there might possibly be a case for keeping "Roman" in some of these instances. Probably no big deal, though. It might also be worth keeping 'Roman' in those instances specifically comparing the church to other churches who regard themselves as Catholic - "The beliefs of other Christian denominations differ from those of Roman Catholics in varying degrees", for example, and "In the 11th century, the Eastern Church and the Roman Catholic Church split". I don't feel incredibly strongly about any of these, though. TSP (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    - The Terminology section would make a reasonable part of a separate article on the name(s) the church goes by. Gimmetrow 21:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This subject is one that will keep on coming up, because some Catholics DO find the "Roman" Catholic designation offensive. One reason for this is that the term was invented by protestants - in part as a form of denial that the Catholic Church was precisely that. It is also seen as an attempt to make the Church sound foreign and therefore non-British or American. In the UK in the 19th century, for example, the government refused to deal with the Church unless it accepted the title "Roman Catholic" in official agreements. The term Roman Catholic has now become very common in many quarters, and has the advantage of precision. I personally would prefer the name Catholic Church to be used, but I can see the benefit of the compromise where the Roman prefix is used for the article title, with the redirect from Catholic Church, the explanation that Catholic Church is the official name, and the use of Catholic Church in the majority of in-text references. However the argument that "Catholic Church" is used as a name by other churches doesn't stand up. The Orthodox don't use it to designate themselves, nor do Anglicans, Copts or any other group. Xandar (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in the same sense - and, you're probably right, not as a name as such; but they (Anglicans, at least) do affirm that there is such a body as the Catholic Church (the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Nicene Creed, or the Holy Catholic Church of the Apostles'), and that they are members of it (for example, in the Chicago quadrilateral, adopted by the ECUSA House of Bishops in 1886 - "That we believe that all who have been duly baptized with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, are members of the Holy Catholic Church"; or in the intercessions in the Church of England's Common Worship - "We pray for the good estate of the catholic Church"); but it's true that this isn't used as an identifying name in the same way.

Ambiguity is more of an issue, as I say, with terms like "Catholic" and "Catholicism" - Anglicans, certainly, affirm that they are Catholic, and use the term freely to describe themselves and their church. There are instances of the full phrase, though - Michael Ramsey, later Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote a book called "The Gospel and the Catholic Church", which was primarily about the Anglican, not the Roman Catholic, church.

As has been examined on this page on various occasions, the possibility for ambiguity depends a great deal on context. If someone says, "I am employed by the Catholic Church", there's really only one reasonable interpretation. If they say, "I adhere to the Catholic faith", there are several things they might mean. TSP (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont mind the name of the article calling itself Roman Catholic Church but I would insist that the redirect for Catholic Church come to this page since English speaking countries have only one church they identify as the Catholic Church. No Anglican is going to type in Catholic Church when seeking an article on the Anglican church, that is just preposterous. We are trying to help users find what they are looking for and it is not a theological statement on the part of Wikipedia to reasonably try to assist in that effort. NancyHeise (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on above comments, I've replaced most instances of "Roman Catholic" with "Catholic" in the article. Exceptions: (1) "In the 11th century, the Eastern Church and the Roman Catholic Church split, largely over disagreements regarding Papal primacy" - I changed Roman Catholic to "Western" here for parallelism with "Eastern". My only concern is that it might not be established that Western and Catholic are the same, so see what you think. (2) "Elsewhere, Christianity was introduced to Japan by Francis Xavier, and by the end of the 16th century tens of thousands of Japanese followed Roman Catholicism." - I kept this as it was, since discussion here shows that at least some people feel "Catholicism" is more obscure a term. Again, see if I misstepped anywhere. -BaronGrackle (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. Regarding the "Western" reference, we had that before and I thought it was OK because it had "(Roman Catholic)" right after the word "Western". I'm not sure why it got changed but I think we should put back the (Roman Catholic) if we are going to say "Western" so people who dont know much about the Church arent confused. NancyHeise (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the Latin rite and Eastern rite of the Catholic Church, Roman is not insulting, I don't know what fool came up with the idea but it is with the word "Latin" one of the ways to distinguish between different Churches in communion, for example its wrong to call someone a Roman Catholic if they follow the Eastern Syriac rite and ambiguous to call them Catholic, thats why we have words like "Roman" and "Chaldean" and "Byzantine" etc. Just my two cents, I know this has probably been repeated up there somewhere Tourskin (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

-This seems to be a contentious point for some reason, and I assume that this has been hashed out over months. That being said, the wording that exists now remains flat-out incorrect and misleading. It is the Catholic Church which is composed of 23 "particular churches" of which only one is the Roman/Latin rite. The current naming states that the Roman/Latin rite contains the 22 eastern rites--which is incorrect. When I came here, I expected this article to deal exclusively with the Roman/Latin rite based on the title--it does not. This is a subtlety which may seem trivial to the uninformed, but it stands out like a sore thumb to experts within the topic. The whole point of an encyclopedia article is for those with extensive knowledge of a subject to write a summary of it so that the uninformed may learn/research correct information about it. The title and article name should be changed to "Catholic Church" and the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" should redirect here. Lwnf360 (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with renaming the article Catholic Church (which I would probably prefer), is that it then produces enormous controversy with members of dozens of other churches saying "This is unfair and POV. We're catholic too." There is a push-pull either way on this issue. Whatever is done with it someone will be very unhappy. We've attempted a compromise, using the "popular" name first, and then the official. Xandar (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Lwnf360's point is really on target. Wikipedia is going to look really stupid having an article that is incorrect in its title. I dont want the page to be a laughingstock after all this work just because we got the title wrong. I suggest that we submit for FAC and bring the point up to the FAC team. Most editors are OK with either name knowing that the redirects will bring people to the right page anyway but the FAC people may prefer to have the name be Catholic instead of Roman Catholic if that is technically more correct. Since it is an issue that can be misunderstood as a POV issue, why dont we let the consensus of FAC reviewers decide? NancyHeise (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The point has been brought up before, but the status quo (article at RCC, redirect from CC, both names used in lead) is the "consensus" in that most people half-agree with it. The last time someone tried to change it there was 170k of discussion over two months, and no change. Words before "Catholic Church" refer to a rite in most cases: Syriac Catholic Church, Greek Catholic Church. But "Roman Catholic Church" also gets used to describe the whole church too. We have, over the years, generated a lot of content about the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" and I think a reasonable article could be made on the phrase alone and linked from here. Gimmetrow 00:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with LwnF360 - the "official" name of the subject institution is "Catholic Church" and therefore, it would be incorrect to use the "popular" name as the article's heading. I have been following this "naming controversy" for over a year now, and have literally wracked my brain trying to come up with a single example of any other institution or organization that has its popular name heading its article in ANY encyclopedia. Can anyone come up with another example? I most especially believe that basically denying an organization or institution its "official" name in the article heading in order to appease people who want to call their organization by that same name is absolutely the worst reason one can list for doing so. If 500 little "Microsoft" companies spring up around the world, headed by 500 completely different CEO's, I think that Bill Gates would have a problem (justifiably), if Wikipedia listed the name of his Microsoft under a different name first. Then, he would probably sue them for improper use of his company's name. The Catholic Church, of course, isn't going to sue anyone for using the name "Catholic Church," or calling themselves "Catholic," but that is no reason to list an "unofficial" or "popular" name in the article heading. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to give the FACTS about the subject - beginning with the subject's CORRECT name in the article heading. 69.221.168.99 (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We have a very notable, very reliable (one of the highest held dictionaries), the OED, stating After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term, and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. Therefore, we have a verifiable source that says that "Roman Catholic" is the official designation. On the other hand, the citation of teh Catechism of the Catholic Church does not say anything about an "official title". I guess a little bit of original research is being used. Since the title of the document is "Catechism of the Catholic Church" instead of "Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church", we can infer that the latter is more official. However, I personally cannot verify from the cited document that "Catholic Church" is the official title, while I can verify that "Roman Catholic" IS from the OED citation. And even if we do allow a bit of original research in the Catechism citation, this turns into a NPOV issue. Since we have two conflicting sources, NPOV says that we cannot take sides, and that instead we present both POVs. There is no reason, what so ever, to ignore the claims of the OED, because it is one of the most definitive and respected reference sources when it comes to the English language. Accordingly, as of now, it is a clear violation of NPOV to state that "Catholic Church" is the "official title", so again, I am reverting back to the longstanding phrasing, and reworking the phrasing. Please do not re-insert NPOV violations and original research into the article (especially during FAC).-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with your edit. The OED and other sources are recognized when we place "Roman Catholic" in such high prominence. On the other hand, all we need is verification that the catechism is an official Church document, or that most/all the official Church documents use "Catholic Church". Then it's not original research to say that the name all official documents use is the official name. "Often referred to as" sounds almost dismissive; when it is the name the Church uses in all official regards. -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I made an edit changing "often referred to as" to "self-identified as". Thoughts? Concerns? -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with using the OED in this case is that it is, like the term "Roman Catholic Church," principally confined to the English language. The term "Roman Catholic CHurch" is seen virtually nowhere else in the world except English speaking countries. Another problem I have is that regardless of what the OED states, the term "Roman Catholic" exists nowhere in any official document of the Catholic Church - encyclicals, council documents, catechisms, etc. Why give an entity a name other than the one it uses itself? Polycarp7 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the first point is completely untrue - look at the titles of the French, German, Polish, Sicilian, Catalan, Danish, Swedish, Dutch, Czech etc etc articles. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I also can't see how calling this entity by a name OTHER THAN Polycarp7 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC) the name it uses for itself, in ALL of its official documents, is "NPOV." In fact, it seems much more POV to me to insist upon using a name other than that which the entity itself uses. Did we consult the OED to determine the name of any other institution, and use the OED's terminology rather than the one in official usage by that entity? The fact that there exist groups and individuals who want to use the name "Catholic" to refer to their own churches is not a problem that Wikipedia can solve, NOR is it Wikipedia's responsibility to solve this. It is Wikipedia's responsibility simply to give the CORRECT name of the entity in its article heading - otherwise, it is misleading. Polycarp7 (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there some sort of compromise we could reach that wouldn't directly say "officially"? Something like "The Roman Catholic Church or simply the Catholic Church"? The problem is, wikipedia has two very important principles in play here: neutral point of view and verifiability. We have a verifiable source that says "Roman Catholic" is the legal and official designation. There is no reason to ignore that. None. I always have to assume that the scholars at Oxford know more than some redlinked, anonymous person on the internet. And that is the way it should be. Everyone knows that anyone can edit wikipedia. For there to be any trust and validity to wikipedia, everything has to be verifiable. We have to rely on sources more than the opinions of anonymous people on the internet. ALWAYS. By saying that one title is official, without a source explicitly saying that, in light of another source that gives another title, you are spitting on the credibility of wikipedia. Just because you believe that one title is used more in Church documents does not mean that we can cite your personal opinion as a reliable source here on wikipedia. I apologize for my tone, but this is something that seems so very obvious to me, that I cannot comprehend the resistance. Some person on the internet knows more than the scholars at Oxford? And you wonder why people question wikipedia's reliability. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(part copied from FAC) Andrew, if you read the OED entry (text unchanged since the first edition of 1914), it is pretty clear it is referring to the "legal and official name" as used by the British authorities. In any case, like any institution, the Catholic Church has the right to decide its own name, regardless of what the OED has to say on the matter. The home page of the Catholic Church in England and Wales leaves little doubt in the matter: [1]. Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you making an argument that the webpage can be used as a reliable source to verify the claim regarding "official"? I hate to pick nits, but we don't have any source that states "The official name is X" (well we do have a source that states that, but it doesn't adhere to your POV". We can gather that Catholic Church is frequently used (and it could be even the majority used term in internal documents), but without a better citation, this "official" claim simply isn't verifiable. You all should know better. Let's work on a wording that we can all agree upon, or let's find a source. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought this used to say "commonly known as" or something like that. Is that a problem? Gimmetrow 03:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think the website can and should be used as an RS here. Why not? Never mind "majority", find one official Church publication that says differently. This isn't difficult; the church must have an official name, and like any institution has the right to decide this for itself. When exactly did "Roman Catholic Church" become the official name, according to you? Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that we say "The Roman Catholic Church is the official name" in the article. The burden of proof is not on me. The burden of proof is one those wanting to make a claim regarding "official". I agree with Gimmetrow "commonly known as" is fine with me. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not accurate, and classic weasel words. There must be an official name. What do you think it is? Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just call the article "Recusants", since we're apparently re-fighting the reformation here. Gimmetrow 04:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added a new reference to support "officially known as the Catholic Church". We have the self published source and now a third party reliable source. There should be no more argument over this issue. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"The burden of proof is one those wanting to make a claim regarding "official". " With all due respect, Andrew, it DOES seem as though you are arguing that since the OED states the "legal and official designation" of the entity under discussion is RCC, then the article heading should be "Roman Catholic Church." Johnbod replied, and this is clear from the context, that the OED is referring to the use BY BRITISH AUTHORITIES. The Catholic Encyclopedia fleshes out the OED's use of the term as stemming from the persecution of the Catholic Church in England and America during the 16th and 17th Centuries, and insists that the Church's name is "Catholic Church," and NOT "Roman Catholic Church." FOr my part, I think the burden of proof is on you to explain why article heading is not "Catholic CHurch, popularly known as "Roman Catholic CHurch," instead of the other way around. Is the OED somehow a more authoritative source for the name of this world-wide institution than the Catholic Encyclopedia? Polycarp7 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, why is the OED a more authoritative source than virtually ALL of the official documents of the Catholic Church? If the Church refers to itself as "Catholic Church" in 99.99% of it's official documents, (which are EASILY accessed on the Internet - more easily accessed than the OED), then why is the name "Catholic Church" not the heading of the article?Polycarp7 (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We dont need to argue this anymore, we have referenced "officially known as the Catholic Church" to two sources, one self published and the other to a third party reliable source. There should be no more discussion on this. 70.149.86.73 (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I was not discussing "commonly known as," or "officially known as." I was asking why, especially now, since you concede that the entity is "officially known as" the "Catholic Church," the article is not entitled "Catholic CHurch"?

LOL, the OED states "...it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term..." - after over 2 years of "non-controversy" over the names RCC vs CC here on Wikipedia, it would seem the OED is innacurate!!Polycarp7 (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is that readers wanting to find info about the Catholic Church will find it and that the info will be correct. If the name of the article is a popular name for the church but then specifies within the article that the official name is "Catholic Church", then it is OK with me. I dont think we should hold up the FAC because of an issue that has already been hashed out before and consensus was reached to address it in the present manner. For that reason, I would like to leave the article as is and not change it because then we not only wont have an FA, we will have the same old argument over again that we already reached consensus on before. I would like to move forward, not back. NancyHeise (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC) NancyHeise (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, you've done a massive and excellent amount of work on this article, and I can't hold a candle to you in that respect, but I have to respectfully disagree with your point. That consensus was reached prior to this latest agreement that the "official" name for this entity is "Catholic Church." In light of this, I think the name should reflect this - "Catholic Church, sometimes knows as Roman Catholic Church," rather than the way it is now. This is simply stating an objective fact - the name of the entity should head the article. Any insistence that RCC should be the heading is, in my opinion, POV. Polycarp7 (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

POV cuts both ways. At some point stability needs consideration. The fact is that having the article at "Catholic Church" would be unstable. The Church does use "Roman Catholic Church" on some occasions, usually when interacting with non-Catholic churches, such as TSP's third link. (TSP's first link is not really on point because cardinals are the court of the Roman patriarch, and presumably Humani Generis has "ecclesia catholica romana"). Gimmetrow 07:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Church uses Roman Catholic Church to talk about the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. When being inclusive of the whole church, including the Eastern Rites, The Church doesn't use the Roman Catholic Church, because that would be inaccurate. 157.242.211.58 (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, but I've been sick the last few days, and I don't want to argue further with people who ignore basic wikipedia policies in light of their own personal beliefs. I appreciate Nancy finding a source and I appreciate Gimmetrow trying to remain a neutral party and offer compromises. The source Nancy found concerns me because it doesn't use the word "official" and it clearly isn't an official church document, but I'll let my concerns go because I am not going to argue this further (I'm convinced personally that CC is more commonly used than RCC internally for the church, but WP:V is still bugging me. let's just hope no one else is such a stickler for accuracy as me). I'll ask a rhetorical question, but I do not intent to follow up. What is the official language of the RCC?-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Latin obviously - is that a serious question? Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow and Nancy are both right - the modifier "Roman" will have to be applied to the name of the Catholic Church in the article's heading. This is PRECISELY because, as Andrew c states, "basic Wikipedia policies" are being ignored - there will always be those who refuse to "allow" the Catholic Church to call herself by the name she gives herself, which is the direct cause of the instability to the article. I have not found a policy listing on Wikipedia stating that titles of articles must be in the "least unstable" form, yet despite "basic Wikipedia policy," that is the form the title of this article will take. With regard to "Humani Generis," the sentence which TSP quoted refers readers to section 12 of the encyclical "MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI," which is quoting directly a Vatican Council I document, Session 3, Ch 1 of the "Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith." That quote states: "The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God." I believe it has already been discussed, ad nauseaum, why the Catholic Church sometimes uses "Roman" - and in this particular case, its use, under a heading of "Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic Faith" can is obviously NOT a reference to the Church's name. Polycarp7 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This has come up on other pages as well. Check out CC vs RCC debate from a while back. It seems to me that he argues from WP policies. I also happen to agree with him. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, too. The CC vs RCC debate used WP policies, not POV - I agree with him, too. I am convinced that it is not because of WP policy that the name of the article is RCC instead of CC. Polycarp7 (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Anyone coming across the article as it is now, "Roman Catholic Church, officially known as Catholic CHurch," HAS to ask themselves: "Well, why doesn't it just say Catholic Church?" That's like heading an article "America, officially known as The Unites States of America." Polycarp7 (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I am happy with the article title, and the opening reflecting that. It is I think the most commonly used term in English, or whatever the magic words are. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there is a clash of principals here. Certainly an organization should be allowed to name itself, but as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs to be sure it is providing the most complete and unbiased information. Many people see the Roman Catholic Church as the proper name and descriptor for that branch of Christianity headquartered at the Vatican and lead currently by Benedict XVI. However, the church itself doesn’t use that descriptor. Notice that the most current catechism for that church is not the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church but rather the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Code of Canon Law also lists the church as simply the Catholic Church. This rises from the fact that the Catholic Church is in fact made up of several rites, each of which calls itself Catholic (Byzantine Catholic, Melkite Catholic etc.) All of these rites subsist within the larger term Catholic Church. To call it the Roman Catholic Church is to marginalize these important Churches. This is, IMHO, why the Catholic Church hardly ever uses the descriptor “Roman” when referring to itself. That said, there are groups who wish to lay claim to the title “Catholic” who don’t care what the Bishop of Rome thinks about anything. Rather they have a right to the title or not is not, again IMHO, Wikipedia’s place to determine. That they call themselves Catholic should be enough for them to be listed here as such. However, I don’t think anyone could deny that when the vast majority of people search for “Catholic Church” on Wikipedia or anywhere else, they are looking for the afore mentioned Vatican City based church and not say, the Palmyra Catholic Church. I think the title of the article should list this Church by its official name “The Catholic Church” with a disambiguation page to refer readers to other Catholic Churches. Further, searches for “Roman Catholic Church” should be redirected here.--Kjrjr (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with your proposal Kjrjr. If this church is officially known as the Catholic Church then the push to push to keep it at Roman Catholic Church is lost. --WikiCats (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have found a few additional examples where a group or entity is known by one name by most people but in fact has a different official name. In each case the official name is the title name used in the Wikipedia article.Quakers redirects to Religious Society of Friends, Mormon Church redirects to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Jesuits redirects to Society of Jesus and to point out a couple of secular examples Ole Miss redirects to University of Mississippi and Oscars redirects to Academy Awards. In each case the first name is a more common name which redirects to an official one. Just thought this was interesting.--Kjrjr (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What this article has that none of those do is other claimants to the name (apart from the Mormon example, in which Mormon Church could refer to multiple entities, while Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints could only refer to one). I don't primarily mean tiny bodies like the Palmarians, more the abstract concept of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which (more or less) all Christians consider themselves to belong to, and around half do not consider the Roman Catholic Church to solely represent. Compare Budweiser - surely the makers of the world's biggest-selling beer should be able to decide what it's name is? But nevertheless, the world's biggest-selling beer is relegated to Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch), even though this form of the name is never used by the company itself, because there is another body (Budějovický Budvar) which disputes Anheuser-Busch's use of the term 'Budweiser'.

Wikipedia's naming conventions don't actually say to give priority to the official name, or to allow bodies to name themselves. The summary is "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." 'Catholic Church' is probably the most recognisable term (though this varies between, for example, Britain and the US); but the argument has generally been that 'Roman Catholic Church' provides a lower ambiguity. TSP (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would challlenge that "Roman Catholic" provides lower ambiguity infact, I would say a majority of English speakers would use the term Catholic Church to refer to the subject at hand much more often than say the Anglican Communion or the Old Catholic Church. I googled Catholic Church (One of the things wikipedia says to do in such a case) and had to go through several pages before I came up with a hit that didn't refer the the church in question. When there was a site referencing another organization, it always used a modifier to the word Catholic: Anglo-Catholic, Old Catholic, Reformed Catholic etc. I also noticed that most of the sites which used Roman Catholic were not directly affiliated and often were critical. (please note I don't wish to reignite the "Roman Catholic" is pejorative argument here. I don't think most people see it as such) If the strongest argument those opposed to using the church's self identified name is that it is ambiguous, I think that the change should be made back to Catholic Church soon. Even now typing Catholic Church into Wikipedia directs one directly to this article with a disambiguation page option if this is not what one wants. Already it seems this community has decided that "Catholic Church" most readily refers to the Vatican based church over other claimants. Ambiguity doesn't seem to be a problem so why not use the organizations self identified, widely used name as the primary title of the article?--Kjrjr (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia current assertion that the Church is officially known as the Catholic Church is insufficiently supported and is too vague:

I continue to have concerns about the assertion in the opening sentence that the Church is "officially known as the Catholic Church". The scholarly evidence for this seems little and contradictory. As Nancy H will confirm, she and I have corresponded at length on this matter. I think Nancy will agree that it is fair to say that she and I have now reached deadlock.

The problem lies not with the name per se, but with the claimed use of the adverb officially and with the use of the passive voice, which of course fails to specify the subject. The immediate response to such an uncompromising and unqualified claim made in the passive voice must be: officially known by whom, where and when - and who says so? Specifically, is the claim being made here that the Church officially calls herself the Catholic Church? Or is the claim here that other, unspecified bodies officially refer to the Church as the Catholic Church - if so, which bodies? The Wikipedia entry currently fails to make this clear.

Few, if any I think, would dispute that, in the English language, Catholic Church has been in widespread use for some time, both informally outside the Church and formally within the Church herself to refer to the Church. However, I can find no official publication on the Church's official website at www.vatican.va that states that the official name of the Church is the Catholic Church, or indeed, interestingly, that it has ever been.

Certainly, Catholic Church appears often on the Church's official website; but so does Universal Church, particularly in pages first written in more recent times; with a lower case ‘U’, universal Church is also used extensively; Latin Church and Holy Catholic Church are used at times; the most magnificent and, arguably, compelling name used is Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church. The name used most often is simply The Church, often with a qualifier such as "whole" or "entire". On the pages written in Latin (the traditional language of the Church, and still with Italian the official language of the Vatican State) Ecclesia Catholica and Ecclesia Universalis may be found. (I can provide a detailed list of links to all these pages at www.vatican.va if anyone wants to see them here.) To argue that all these terms are equivalent or insist that Universal means the same as Catholic misses the point, which is that it seems quite evident that the Church herself is happy to use a number of different appellations to refer to herself at different times and in different contexts and is unconcerned about her "official" name.

Of course, this is just my interpretation of the Church's publications on this matter. However, to comply with Wikipedia policy, an authoritative third party source is needed to support the current assertion that the Church is “officially known as the Catholic Church”.

Of the two sources cited, the first is not sufficiently authoritative for a major Wikipedia entry of this nature. The first source cited, an article entitled “How did the Catholic Church get her name” is a 1996 article by Kenneth D. Whitehead, first published by Our Sunday Visitor Inc in The Catholic Answer, republished online by the Global Catholic Network. Whitehead cites no sources in his article to support his assertions. His argument for the official name of the Church seems to rest largely on Whitehead’s interpretation of the outcome of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and the fact that the name of the Church’s catechism is of course the Catholic Catechism.

The second source cited is the page in English at www.vatican.va about the Catechism. Obviously, this refers to the Catholic Catechism: however, the assertion made in Wikipedia doesn’t follow from the indisputable fact that the Catechism is famously (and officially, indeed) known as the "Catholic Catechism".

Finally, as I pointed out at some length in my correspondence with Nancy, I can find no English speaking jurisdiction that uses the name “Catholic Church” officially to refer to the Church. For instance, the USA Supreme Court in its decision of Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277 (1867), in its opening paragraphs twice refers to the Reverend Mr. Cummings, as "a priest of the Roman Catholic Church". Various of the Commonwealth of Australia's Acts of Parliament specifically use the name "The Roman Catholic Church".

The only English speaking jurisdiction I can find that has ever used anything other than “Roman Catholic Church” in recent times to refer to the Church was the Republic of Ireland whose Constitution until 1972 referred to the Church as, rather splendidly I would again maintain, The Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.

My suggestion is that until an authoritative source can be found to support the assertion that the Church is "officially known as the Catholic Church", the assertion be modified to read: “widely known as the Catholic Church”. Colenso (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that "widely known" doesn't say all that is there. A closer phrase would be "referred to as the Catholic Church in most Vatican official documents, and widely known by that name". That is heavily supported. The current phrase "officially known as" is, I feel, synonymous enough to this phrase to still apply. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

G'day Baron. I take it then we agree that as a minimum, the article may state without fear of controversy that the name is widely used? If so, then I maintain that a question mark remains over the use of the adjective official (or the adverb officially) together with the ambiguity created by the use of the passive voice. The designation of official ought not be used lightly nor without full and proper justification (the Church certainly does not do so!): example, what is the official name of the country recently ravaged by a cyclone - Myanmar or Burma? According to the generals the answer is Myanmar; according to the Secretary General of the UN the answer is Burma.

I think some contributors are missing three important points here: firstly, it's evident the Church has no single official name for herself (according to my recent statistical analysis of the Vatican website, the name she most often uses, in English (note not Italian nor Latin, the two official languages of the Church), is not the Catholic Church but simply the Church). Secondly, parliaments and the highest courts in the English speaking world (with the possible continuing example of the Republic of Ireland) do not generally call her the Catholic Church: they refer to her officially as the Roman Catholic Church - in their official documents at least. Thirdly, surely someone can come up with better support for the claim about her official name than Whitehead's equivalent of one of Roosevelt's fire-side talks aimed at the true believers? This is akin to citing an article in the Watch Tower in a debate about the literal truth of Genesis! Colenso (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, Colenso. It is simply hilarious that you bring up the topic of Burma/Myanmar, for, if you look at either my contributions or the Talk:Burma/Myanmar subpage, you'll find that I'm one of the most vocal whiners involved in that argument (side note: both the country's government AND the Secretary General of the United Nations state that the official name is "Myanmar"; come to the page for more fun!) On this topic, though, I'd agree the passive voice can make it vague. The problem with "widely known as" or "often called", though, is that it makes Catholic Church sound like a mere colloquialism. I suggested "self-identified" earlier, but it wasn't that popular... probably because it doesn't present the fact that many others identify it by that name as well. What if we eliminate the passive voice? Even if the Church (there it is again, as per your point) doesn't say "the official name is the Catholic Church" in any document, it still refers to itself as "the Catholic Church" in most of its official documents. One way or another, there is something official about that. Does that make any sense? -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Really, Baron, you're a whiner about Burma/Myanmar are you? Me too!! I wonder if we take the same or opposite sides - I'll have to take a look... For what it's worth, I happen to agree with your suggestion about "self-identified" : I think that's a step on the right track because at least it has the courage to specify WHO calls or names or refers to the Church with such and such a name. I take your point here, but rather than official, which I think should be kept for statements like "The official name of Russia is the Russian Federation" (even though of course, the Russian constitution very early on its text announces that it intends to use "Russia" as a synonym throughout), how about proper, formal, conventional, well-established, preferred or some other adjective?. You get the picture - something that implies more than a mere colloquialism but is a step short of the full blown official.

However, I still think we need to break down the name issue further into, one, the name that the Church usually takes or prefers to take for herself or usually refers to herself. Two, the name that English speaking legal jurisdictions formally use when referring to the Church; three, the most important issue of trying very hard to meet Wikipedia's standards on POV and so cite only the best quality, third party, peer reviewed sources published in reputable academic journals or books for this Wikipedia entry. What do you think of my three separate subcategories, in principle? Colenso (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The joint international commission for the theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.
The Anglican Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission.
The encyclical Humani Generis, in which section 27 begins "Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing."