Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Break Time

Thank you to everyone who has worked so hard on this article. It has been a pleasure working on this increasingly interesting and fun project. I don't know about the rest of you but I have learned a lot of new and interesting things about the history of Western Civilization in this process. Sorry we didn't make it through FAC, it happens. We will be regrouping in a couple of weeks to submit for a new peer review and will contact all those who voted or commented in the last FAC. Our hope is to get all messy greivances out and addressed before the next FAC. I want to specifically discuss FAC etiquette in the next peer review too. This project is supposed to be fun and interesting and respectful of all. There were some FAC reviewers who slung some harsh words at us and vice versa. I would like to avoid that in the next FAC and will be mentioning this to the reviewers too. It is very unhelpful to us to be called POV when we are placing good faith facts on the page. Neither should we call any opposers POV for opposing. I think if we all just take a break and talk it out when we come back the next FAC will go smoothly. By that time I think we will have had comment from every single editor on Wikipedia if we count all the peer reviews and FACs over this past year! ;) Peace. NancyHeise ^talk 02:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Corrections needed in note 1

The note cites Walsh as a source for its statement that "in common usage" the word "catholic" refers to the body also known as the Roman Catholic Church. Walsh actually contradicts the statement that is thus attributed to him: he says that "in common usage ... the matter is not quite so straightforward" (page 18).

Soidi, your arguments have been discussed over and over and over again with no one agreeing with you. This [1] documents our most recent consensus against your position which was acheived only a few days ago. I am replacing the Walsh source that you deleted against this documented consensus. Please, unless you gain consensus, do not remove information that documented consensus on this talk page has agreed upon. NancyHeise ^talk 02:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed strange that any intelligent person can think it important to keep as "proof" of a statement in the article the citation of a source that disagrees with the statement! I can only suppose that the editor who has this attitude has not bothered to look at the substance. Look at it, and you will see that the statement is: "In common usage ('catholic') refers to the body also known as Roman Catholic Church". And you will see that the cited book says: "'Catholic' is regularly also (i.e. in addition to its use in the sense in which "all Christians can express belief in the Catholic Church") used in opposition to 'Protestant', and it is used also in opposition to the term 'Orthodox' ... In common usage, however, the matter is not quite so straightforward. ..." Think it over for a bit. Do you really believe that the book supports the statement? Then perhaps undo your restoring of this ridiculous self-contradiction. Soidi (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of editors have looked at the source and decided by consensus vote here [2] that all of these refs support the article text, including the one you disagree with. NancyHeise ^talk 19:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I fear that a lot of editors voted without bothering to look at the text. Have you yourself read page 18 of Walsh's book, from which the above quotations come? Please click on this link and read the lower half of the page. Soidi (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and on the following page of the same book here [3] he admits that the name Catholic in common usage refers to Roman Catholics even though he states his personal disagreement with its appropriateness. We kept this reference because it shows agreement between people of various POV's that Catholic in common usage means Roman Catholics. Kenneth Whitehead also confirms this. Thus we have two opposing POV's in agreement on this topic which means that there is no dispute over the issue.NancyHeise ^talk 03:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I cannot find where on page 19 Walsh "admits that the name Catholic in common usage refers to Roman Catholics". Would you please quote? He does say that "a good many Roman Catholics object to the epithet 'Roman'"; but that is by no means the same as saying that in common usage "Catholic" refers to Roman Catholics. Rather it indicates that the term "Roman Catholic" is in common usage and that some of those to whom it is applied object to it. The nearest I find to the phrase "common usage" is: "This was not an uncommon attitude, at least in Britain, from the late sixteenth to the late nineteenth century"; but the attitude in question is the claim that "Roman Catholics cannot be loyal citizens of their native land". Those who made that claim would certainly not contribute to an alleged "common usage" of the name "Catholic" to refer to Roman Catholics. So where is the statement by Walsh that you see on page 19? Soidi (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Walsh Page 19 quote: "As the previous section attempted to explain, the term 'Catholic' has so many meanings, and is claimed by so many different churches that it cannot properly be used (though of course in practice it is) to denominate one specific Christian community. The Christians commonly known as Catholics should more properly be known as Roman Catholics." I bolded Walsh's statements of fact, the unbolded portion represents his personal opinions. NancyHeise ^talk 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Nancy. I have proposed a revision of the text to overcome the apparent contradiction that arose from the phrase "common usage". I hope it is acceptable. Soidi (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC) ] (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC Farce

I think it's quite clear that after this fifth round of the farce that is FAC, that the FAC system is broken, and that no Catholic article that isn't a "blistering expose of Catholic evil" is going to make it past the clique of POV-pushers at FAC. The FAC process and personnel need an urgent and thoroughgoing review so that a few biased opposers are no longer allowed to continually stymie an article with vague and unspecified allegations of POV until it fits in with their viewpoint. The running of the RCC FAC by Sandy has been chronic. She has done nothing to rigorously test opposes and see that they were precise and fitted the criteria, and has consistently made laughably biased interventions on behalf of the the same clique of "reviewers". I notice the same Marskell who came late to the FAC with POV opposes, is actually admin co-ordinator on Featured Article Review - the same FAR that voted the extremely unbalanced Islam article (see beneath) a free ride back to FA status! Unbelievable! The bronze star means very little in real terms now by the standard of much of the junk that gets passed on the nod, while articles of effort and substance on major topics are treated in this manner. (Many of the articles passed are about obscure highways, Video Games or buildings like today's Featured Article Priestfield Stadium!)

Feature Article co-ordinator, SandyGeorgia, attempted to imply that the process worked by arguing here that the Islam article passed the system. Actually all that shows is the double-standard of the system being run at FAC. Just look at the Islam article - particularly the History section. Is there ANY mention of the massacres of Mohammed perpetrated on Jews and fellow Arabs? Any MENTION of the destruction of neighbouring civilisations, piracy slavery? NOT A WORD! Oppression of women? Not mentioned. Mention of massacres in Spain, Byzantium, Armenia, Greece? No sign. The Crusades were "launched" by Christians. No mention of the Muslim attacks on Byzantium, Georgia and Armenia that provoked the response. One section is even titled with the amazingly POV heading "Golden Age"! Imagine if we had put that title up on a section of the Catholicism article... 1000-1500 Golden Age of Catholicism! How the same people who supported Islam would have had an attack of apoplexy - and been supported by the same SandyGeorgia who now tells us how wonderful and NPOV Islam is! Yet "Islam" flies through, and Sandy and her followers at FAC strain at gnats over the Catholicism article, wanting us to list every negative action ever commited by a Catholic and cut out anything that might hint Catholics ever did anything good. That single comparison shows the hypocrisy of the present process and why major changes need making to ensure the process is truly unbaiased and not he preserve of a certain clique. Xandar 09:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar I must stand shoulder to shoulder with you in this matter. I won't say anything more than that I fully agree your comments - especially about the Golden Age of Catholicism! Gabr-el 23:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not stand with Xandar on this and I am ashamed that he put this on our RCC talk page. I deleted it at least three times but it is still here. I thought the Islam article was well done. When I went over to that article to learn more about Islam because of a new Muslim friend of my son's I came away well informed. I did not go there to view a list of all the evils perpetrated on humankind in the name of Islam, I just wanted a brief overview - which is what it gave to me. Golden Age of Islam is actually called just that by scholars, that is not something editors made up themselves. I was hoping in using Sandy's favoritism for Islam's NPOV tone to help us make a similar article here at RCC but I guess that is out the window now. I do not see how we have a chance to take this article through another FAC process after the abuse that has been heaped upon Sandy and the rest of the FAC reviewers. Marskell was actually trying to help me bring a more NPOV tone to RCC and although I did not agree with him completely in every comment, he was on target on many others. While some FAC reviewers have been less than friendly or civil in tone, that does not mean we have to blow our top and call the whole process a farce. Opposition is to be expected on an article like this and it is not an obstacle to FA but a necessary stepping stone. NancyHeise ^talk 00:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

We're not blowing our tops off; we wish to establish a FAC process that has a chance of succeeding beyond 0% - if Xandar's comments are true, and the criticism of this article has been vague and is not going to be able to improve this article... Gabr-el 01:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

All we had left to do was a little article tweaking to eliminate some POV sounding phrases - that is all Sandy wanted in addition to having a more civilized FAC process. No one ever said we had zero chance of passing next time and we were encouraged to continue with these last few items and then bring it back for a final, hopefully smoother FAC. I am not saying that you and Xandar shouldn't bring up troubling issues - I just think it could be addressed in a more respectful manner and that we need to consider that opposition is to be expected and dealt with a cool head and hopefully a sense of humor - not anger. I find it hard to call the FAC process a farce when the result of past failures has led to article improvement. I was looking forward to having a good relationship with the regular FAC reviewers and actually making it through next time after another peer review. I don't know how many FAC reviewers are going to want to come work on this page after they have all been brushed aside in Xandar's angry post. I found it interesting that most of those who opposed last time did not come back to oppose this time and several of those who did, switched their vote to support. It was all very encouraging I thought even though I too was worn out by POV accusations and callous remarks by some new FAC reviewers. However, we need to grow some thicker skins and not expect the world to be fair. It would help if we could also gain a sense of humor and fun - I don't mind opposers at all, it provides a chance to interact with someone who is coming at this from a different angle. When that happens we all learn new things. It is not all bad you know. NancyHeise ^talk 01:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar is a little extreme, but I understand his frustration. I think you, Nancy, might be more optimistic than most other editors. I might also be a bit skeptical of the possibility of an honest, single standard used at FAC. Religious topics are very difficult, particularly those that associated with Christianity. Individuals have very strong emotions and it often creates nearly impossible hurdles to moving such a topic through FAC because of the strong opinions it engenders. FAC is nice, but it is not the ideal determination of a truly great article. You do your level best to make the article great and then move on. Whether another person feels the same way is irrelevant. The expectation may be unrealistic that this article will ever achieve FAC unless it becomes something that would be unrecognizable to most Catholics and historians. --^StormRider 01:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well so far the article has only improved with less and less people opposing. I don't think my hopes are too unrealistic. I just wish it was more of a pleasant process, we should not be falling into this despair and hopelessness when we have received such encouragement both in words and actions from Sandy and FAC reviewers. NancyHeise ^talk 01:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I am not disagreeing with your position, but I understand Xandar's motivation. It is highly irregular to delete another editor's comments on a talk page. Your motivations may have been in the right place, but their expression was unacceptable. It would be better to talk with Xandar and request him to remove his comment voluntarily. The FAC designation is only valid if the standard is uniform. When it is so obviously lacking in uniformity, the value is diminished. For me personally, it is nice, but hardly a designation that motivates me to edit an article. I do not want to throw cold water on your vision for the article, but I hope to give the space necessary for Xandar and Gab to express their frustration, but also to possibly change their expectations by putting FAC into perspective so that future frustrations are more easily handled. It is a great article because we say it is, not because another group of people say it is.--^StormRider 02:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I may have gone far in supporting some of Xandar's comments - but you cannot deny the inherent POV against Christianity. You'll find less POV against Christianity and Catholicism in the mostly-Islamic Middle East than in the west. Gabr-el 02:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Gabr-el, I do not agree with that statement. Please remember they are killing Catholics right now in Iraq and India. I don't see anyone dragging us out of our churches here and murdering the lot of us (Iraq)[4] [5] [6] or burning down orphanages after raping the nuns and burning a nun to death (India)[7] [8]. Failing FAC is hardly up there on the persecution scale. NancyHeise ^talk 02:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am the last person to be reminded about my people being slaughtered in Iraq... though you do have a point. Gabr-el 03:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is simple. There has been a double-standard in the criteria being used to pass or reject articles at FAC. That is undeniable when you look at the Featured Islam article, with zero criticism of its subject, and the fact that this article was failed on POV at the fifth return to FAC when it is twenty times as critical of its subject. In such circumstances, speaking the truth does no harm. Nancy wants to try and befriend the opposers at FAC into supporting the article. The trouble is that a vocal minority aren't going to support an article that doesn't echo their strongly anti-catholic misapprehensions and POV. While POV warriors are allowed to block the article with vague allegations that they refuse to back up, the process can't work. Raul himself said at the end of the June FAC that he wanted specific objections to be lodged here and sorted out. However most of the objectors didn't come here with specific points when asked. They didn't appear at Peer review, or engage in sorting their alleged difficulties out. But then again at this FAc, the vague and unsupported objections that the article is too pro-Catholic appeared. And again, instead of coming down firmly on this sort of vague unspecific objection, some of the admins joined in! If SandyGeorgia and others are yet again saying "Try again later, you might do it next time," forgive me if I respond with deep cyniscism. A) Why fail the FAC yet again, rather than restart? B) Unless there is some sign that they are going to clean up their act, and acknowledge that certain things are wrong with their operation at FAC, the same thing will keep on happening. It becomes like Charlie Brown with Lucy and the football. Wikipedia needs an FA process that actually works. Xandar 00:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, in this last FAC, you really laid into Sandy before she even made any decision at all, she was just having conversation with me over FAC issues and you wrote a really harsh and critical section berating her. I actually think that she would have been more inclined to restart than close if it hadn't been for your attitude and abuse leveled at her. I use the word abuse because that is what you are doing. How do you know for certain that she or anyone else is being POV? It is really a sin to presume someone is doing something when you really don't know for sure. Wikipedia has such nice rules like assume good faith. We can really learn to be better people by following those rules. If they are being POV and failing us just because they hate the Catholic Church (which I seriously doubt), that is for God to judge, not us. We are required to treat all with respect and love, not suspicion and contempt.NancyHeise ^talk 01:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Reactions to the FAC closing

In my closing comments, I suggested a path to Nancy: collaborating with the experienced FA writers who have at one time or another shown an interest, then double checking the opposes that remained unstruck at close to see if any more can be done to address anything there, and then working to shine the prose.[9] I was hoping to promote a collaborative talk page environment that would encourage editors who had avoided this article after the combativeness on the earlier FACs to re-engage, and kudos to Nancy for working towards that end. But there’s no guarantee of who will show up at a peer review nor is anyone required to do so before commenting on a FAC. Any valid actionable objection wrt WP:WIAFA lodged at FAC should be considered in good faith, regardless of whether editors appeared previously at a peer review.

There are some things being said here that are getting away from the facts:

1. Xandar incorrectly stated that: "I also notice that the FAC page itself has been altered before archiving (again, in my view not in line with proper processes). All the comments positive of the article from supporters, all responses to opposes, and all of the comments from several editors critical of the repeated process with regard to the RCC article have been removed."[10] As the page history shows, this is not true: the page was archived by GimmeBot at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive5: [11]. After the page was moved to archive, I updated the links to the archived talk page. [12]
2. Nancy and Xandar have mentioned " ... Sandy's favoritism for Islam's NPOV ..." [13] and "SandyGeorgia ... now tells us how wonderful and NPOV Islam is!" [14] These statements are unfounded and inaccurate. In a discussion of prose requirements, Awadewit inquired if controversial articles could achieve the standard needed to pass FAC: [15] my only statement about Islam was that it was an example of an article on a controversial topic that passed FAC. [16] I did not participate in the Islam FAC or FAR, and it was promoted months before I became FAC delegate. Comparing a FAC that passed a year and a half ago to what passes now is apples and oranges, and claims of a double standard reflect an incomplete understanding of the workings of Wiki or FAC: unlike May 2007, every FAC now gets an image check, a sources check, and many copyeditors have worked to raise the prose standards. Further, since Wiki is an online volunteer effort, the same pool of reviewers didn't show up to the Islam FAC and the RCC FAC a year and a half later. No conspiracy, no inconsistency, just the way a Wiki works: we can’t draw parallels between what passed FAC years ago and what passes today with two different reviewer pools.
3. Marskell later made an entirely different point about the choices made by the authors of Islam, the opposite of the choices the RCC article editors have made, saying that they aimed to keep the article as short as possible, sticking to the bare facts and using sub-articles for detail (I haven't looked at the version that passed compared to where it is now and it is not an article I have ever engaged).[17] [18] The editors of this article, on the other hand, decided not to go with past suggestions to dramatically shorten the article with more aggressive use of summary style. Comparing the two articles, again, is apples and oranges because of their basic structure. It is food for thought, but I am NOT saying that you have to adopt that style, only explaining the difference Marskell stated about the Islam article.
4. Repeated references to "RCC's fifth FAC" are incorrect:[19] RCC has had four, not five, FACs. Because their length has been unprecedented, and reviewers were upset when their comments were wiped away in previous restarts, I experimented with a different method for restarting the third FAC. The restart is recorded incorrectly in articlehistory as a separate FAC because I moved it to archive. This is relevant to my next point. "I suspect that if we make Sandy's job very easy instead of very hard by obscuring the core issue with so much discussion, She might be more likely to see the end result of each comment."[20] I can process long commentary, thank you :-) There are other reasons for avoiding lengthy commentary. Occasionally, FACs do become too jumbled to sort, and when that is the case, I say so on restart. In this case, there were ongoing disputes and discussion and reverts among regular editors, and nine editors who opposed on POV. Amid all the combativeness and personal preferences and lengthy debate with some issues less valid than others on the FAC, reviewers did provide examples that the text could still benefit from some NPOVing. As I explained to Nancy, I decided against a restart because of the previous issues with archiving due to length and in the belief that productive work would proceed more quickly and easily off-FAC.
5. Heated rhetoric. "I actually think that she would have been more inclined to restart than close if it hadn't been for your attitude and abuse leveled at her."[21] No :) Of more concern that Xandar’s heated rhetoric aimed at me is that an environment is created where the article can succeed at FAC. Again, the concern is that other editors not be discouraged from engaging to help in the work of preparing the article for FAC. I appreciate NancyHeise's concern above[22] about Xandar's posts, but what is said to or about me doesn't enter into my closing decision. More troubling is "Marskell is one of Sandy's respected FAC friends ... " [23] which seems to imply that my decisions are based on Wiki alliances: content, policy, guidelines and the strength of examples raised to support arguments are what I consider in making FAC decisions, not personalities or commentors.

Regarding the queries below about FAC etiquette:[24]

• 1) "The FAC page should just be a place for nominator to respond to FAC reviewers questions". Dialogue between reviewers and nominators is usually helpful, and we shouldn't discourage it or change FAC based on one article that has been the exception rather than the rule. What isn't helpful is discussion about personalities, 2 to 5KB responses to every point raised by reviewers that restate the article text but don’t resolve the concerns, attacks on opposers and accusations that opposers are POV or anti-Catholic, lists of what editors may and may not be Catholic or non-Catholic, lists of information that is already in the article, long excerpts of text from the article, or long discussions that aren't related to addressing an oppose. These FACs have had all of those and more, putting the pages at record lengths. If a specific topic requires extended discussion, you might suggest that it would be better dealt with on article talk, or the FAC page talk. If a specific reviewer or supporter is being combative or frequently going off topic, we can try to deal with that individual situation.
• 6) "FAC reviewers, before calling anyone or anything in the article POV... " Articles come to FAC for critique and review and we shouldn't stifle critique of our most fundamental NPOV policy. There is a difference between criticizing text and criticizing or attacking editors: nominators submit to criticism of text when they come to FAC. Factors in analyzing neutrality go beyond just which sources are used to how they are presented, whether the choice of sources and text from those sources is balanced or cherry-picked, whether all points of view are accorded due weight, whether the text is POV at the clause level, whether WP:WTA are used, and many other factors. The notion that an article is necessarily NPOV because facts from high-quality sources are used is an oversimplification of what it takes to achieve encyclopedic neutrality and discussion of these issues is part of FAC. That doesn't mean we can't do something to encourage more respect and consideration on all sides and improve the level of dialogue, but plank, eye, and all that.
• 9) "FAC reviewers, if you are a person who really hates religion topics or religious people ... " If the article is promoted and goes to the main page, you'll get them by the hundreds, and worse than anything seen so far. As Dweller explained, [25] RCC is not a unique target of editors who have a bias or an axe to grind on the internet, sorting biased reviews is part of the process.
• 10) "If FAC reviewers insist on being as offensive as possible, I am going to request Sandy and Raul to automatically disqualify their comments." Then we might also have to disqualify the offensive and rude supporters :-) It does not benefit an article to let deficiencies through to later be attacked on the mainpage by hundreds of readers because the person who noted that deficiency at FAC was rude. In other article's FACs, I've seen the most random, drive-by, new editor raise a correct issue that no one else noticed, and I've seen disruptive reviewers nail something crucial. Stifling critique heads us down a slippery slope, and our goal is articles that can withstand main page scrutiny from a much broader and less sympathetic audience. Criticism is part of the process, hence nominator handling of criticism is explicitly mentioned in the WP:FAC instructions. That does not mean we should have to accept rudeness or tendentious or obnoxious disruption from supporters or opposers: I've got other ideas about how to better manage the length and combative input next time, but asking reviewers to be more considerate will be more effective if the heated rhetoric coming from this page and article supporters is likewise reduced.

My primary suggestion continues to be that the best path forward is to create an environment that encourages other FA writers and nominators to engage and iron out issues pre-FAC. The goal is not to "befriend the opposers at FAC into supporting the article": it is to write an article that will easily gain broad support at FAC. No one is requesting a "blistering expose of Catholic evil": if I promoted such an article, it would be POV, and I'd also have real problems on the home front, not to mention with my many Godchildren. Many editors want to see this article make it: good luck !!

(I have number my points to make it easier for replies: please add any responses below mine so my response and numbered bullets don't get all chopped up.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Sandy's post above Thank you Sandy for taking the time to clear up a lot of things for us. Points are all well taken, I have read them and re-read them and might do it even again to make sure I have them all ingrained. I think it is clear that the evolution of this article has affected both supporters and opposers all along the way. I think we have all, for the most part, evolved into higher forms of Wikipedia editors as a result! :) I am very sorry for any adversarial comments from either myself or other article supporters. I don't know what else to do but keep trying to evolve into a better article and editors with better manners. We are trying. I appreciate very much all the help from both supporters and opposers. I have some specifice comments on your points above:

Point number 3: I understood Marskell's comments on Islam FA. I agree that it is comparing apples to oranges because of the different approaches regarding what to include - we have chosen to be a little more detailed mainly because all editors to the article and all FAC reviewers of all the FAC's consistently ask for more information in the article, not less. I am just responding to what appears to be a vast consensus of editors wishes regarding content. However, in all of my efforts to respond to these wishes, it is very apparent that what most editors want to see in the article is not always backed up by scholars. We have to recognize that there are a lot of people with serious deficiencies of knowledge regarding Catholic Church history and scholarly opinions. Many top FAC reviewers have made serious mistakes about what constitutes a good source (that has been resolved), whether or not Jesus founded a Church (resolved by Origins and Mission section), whether or not the Roman Church existed before the 4th century (resolved by consensus agreement on scholars and lack of any source that states otherwise), official name (resolved by consensus), and more recently comments regarding the Church and colonialism which we are going to try and present in a better format this time around. I have been accused of arguing with FAC reviewers but no one seems to notice that while I may be wrong sometimes and correct my deficiency, these reviewers have also been very wrong in past FACs too. If I had submitted to many of their wishes, the article would be factually incorrect or would have tossed very important sources. This has been and continues to be one of the main reasons for long discussions on the FAC page. This past FAC, opposes by Soidi, Taam, Vassyana, Geometry Guy, and Ioannes had both some good points in them that I incorporated but also several very incorrect points, unsupported by scholars and some of them were very very rude and provacative in their comments - I did not respond to them in any kind of rude way. I expect controversy and I don't mind it but on a FAC page, there might be some help given to all sides if some kind of referee would step in and mention to FAC reviewer or page supporter that a minimum level of civility is desired here. If we don't expect people to have some manners, they won't. If they know ahead of time that certain behaviours will make their arguments invalid, they might be inspired to participate in a manner that is more likely to result in article improvement. NancyHeise ^talk 14:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC Etiquette Considerations

Before we go into another peer review and FAC, I have some considerations for both article editors and future FAC reviewers to consider that will help make the FAC process go a little more smoothly next time. Please let me know what you think.

• Rules for RCC editors and FAC reviewers to consider when dealing with the FAC
• 1)The FAC page should just be a place for nominator to respond to FAC reviewers questions. If other editors want to discuss issues with that FAC reviewer, I suggest that the conversation take place on that FAC reviewers talk page so that the actual FAC page does not become cluttered with so much conversation. I suspect that if we make Sandy's job very easy instead of very hard by obscuring the core issue with so much discussion, She might be more likely to see the end result of each comment. A discussion on an FA reviewers talk page could be resolved there with a note to Sandy on the FAC page with a diff provided so she can go to the actual conversation if she wants to do so. Thus, the suggested format for FAC conversation should be as follows:

FAC reviewer comment

FAC nominator response with invitation to continue discussion on FAC reviewers talk page

FAC nominator summary of that discussion with diff

• 2)All FAC Reviewers should be asked to please read the FA Islam before reading and offering comments on RCC. While we certainly can not make people read another whole page and we should be grateful for the reviewers time spent reviewing our page, it makes sense to ask them to see how another religion FA has been handled and what is or is not expected to be on the page - the point is to try and avoid having FA Reviewers offering us a list of what some might consider "kitchen sink" comments as in they want the article to include everything including the kitchen sink which does not help make a proper article size and makes it difficult to read while also obscuring the basic message of the article.
• 3)Not all participants in this process are adults. Because Wikipedia has a generous population of teenagers, do not expect every person commenting at FAC to be a mature adult who posesses perfect communication skills. Even some mature adults do not posess perfect communication skills so we need to be a little more thick skinned if we encounter someone's abrasive comments.
• 4)If we are a mature adult, we are expected to posess perfect communication skills and saintly patience with those who do not; if we do not have those, please consider not participating in this FAC.
• 5)Expect opposition. This is a controversial subject, some people have strong views for or against. Do not be surprised by someone else's POV and since we are mature adults, try to listen with an open mind and then respond with kindness.
• 6)FAC reviewers, before calling anyone or anything in the article POV, please consider that it has been worked on for months by four Catholics and about three times as many non-Catholics - all of whom came to agreement on content and sources through months of discussions and collaborations. Facts like "the Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination" and "membership is growing" are not POV, they are notable facts. The Cultural influence section is a summary of several top scholarly books and university textbooks observations about Catholic Church cultural influence - not a POV section. If you want to see the actual quotes from the sources, they are listed on the last FAC's talk page.
• 7)Article editors, be grateful that FAC reviewers, either for or against, have taken the time to come see the article and make an effort to give us their thoughts. Oprah Winfrey says "A cheerful disposition is indicative of a grateful heart" . Attitude of Gratitude is constantly preached at my parish - be Grateful and we wont get Grumpy! :)
• 8)Article editors, this is a fun and interesting project. If we are not having fun or do not find this interesting, please consider a Wikibreak or help work on one of the article's daughter pages.
• 9)FAC reviewers, if you are a person who really hates religion topics or religious people, if you are one of those anonymous editors who leaves us daily dirty messages in the daily page vandalism, please do not be a FAC reviewer. FAC reviewers are supposed to be open minded people who will apply FAC criteria to an article regardless of their personal feeling for or against the subject matter. I am placing this here because in the last FAC we did have one FAC reviewer, a brand new account, who was very offensive to us and berating of our religion in his FAC comments and carried on in his FAC review as if the process were a blog. This is unacceptable FAC reviewer behaviour. Respect goes both ways.
• 10)If FAC reviewers insist on being as offensive as possible, I am going to request Sandy and Raul to automatically disqualify thier comments. FAC should not be an opportunity for anyone to be a punching bag for someone else's personal problems.

Thats a start, please feel free to add to this list of etiquette concerns if you wish. NancyHeise ^talk 13:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about the first point. Sometimes it can be helpful when others jump in. I recognize, however, that there are plenty of cases when it's unhelpful. But I certainly agree with point eight, above all! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Point one is not proposing that comments of others are unwelcome, it just puts the discussion on a separate page that is not the FAC page. At end of discussion with all parties involved, Nominator summarizes the discussion on FAC page and provides a diff to the discussion area. Opposer either strikes oppose or not depending on discussio results. Nominator's summary should say why oppose was not actionable if it is not answered. The FAC page is then left clutter free with just the most important facts of the discussion on the page. NancyHeise ^talk 01:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on above

Dweller's Version is much more concise and easy to read: {{notice|Note to all contributors This FAC has occasionally veered away from the "true path" of what an FAC should be about. I'm going to be horribly patronising now, so please gird your loins, but do read on:

Nominators: Consider criticism with a totally open mind and thank contributors for their time and efforts. You don't need to agree with every suggestion and comment, but when you disagree, do so politely and with explanation. If the reviewer strongly disagrees, they'll say so and it might be worth soliciting a third opinion, perhaps from a relevant WikiProject, which is a good way of removing your own ego from the situation and finding resolution.

Reviewers: Remember why you're here. It's to ensure an article passes WP:WIAFA, not to ensure an article passes your own preferences. Sometimes the two are aligned, sometimes not – be careful with the difference. If you want to suggest "nice to do"s, please do so, but at the article talk page, not the FAC. Bear in mind that the article you're critiquing is someone's labour of love, so don't be unnecessarily harsh with your words – it only leads to a prickly response, which is counter-productive. Be prepared not to "win" every battle, but understand that the real battle is to produce a FA class article – so you're actually on the same side.

The above was copied and pasted from user:Dweller. NancyHeise ^talk 13:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nancy. I also recommend perusal of WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY and WP:POLE, two of my other essays. --Dweller (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Having taken part in several FAs over the last couple of months and read various editors comments on the process I would agree that there are some problems with FA, but the solution is not a separate set of etiquette for certain articles. I think the appropriate place to review FAC etiquette is on talk:FAC, and suggest that this discussion be moved there. ϢereSpielChequers 14:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In prior years, I copy edited FAC articles for a specific editor. His rule, which at the time I thought was a general rule, was that only he, as nominator and major editor, could respond on the FAC page. This was fine with me. It also seemed to prevent the lengthy arguing to and fro that seems to go on now on many FAC pages, eg the current FAC for Major depressive disorder, that are not even controversial in the same sense that RCC is. Disclaimer: I cannot make myself read any of the FAC pages for the RCC, so I do not know what the specific issues were there. However, if you look at archived FAC pages for FAs from years past, you will see that most of them are very brief—a few comments and some Supports and maybe some Opposes with short comments and no arguing. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, that in an FAC where editors are demanding major article changes, or arguing on distinct fields, like medieval History, which may not be the nominator's chief strength, more voices may be needed. If Nancy agreed an unsuitable addition or change with an objector, and applied it to the article, that could raise big problems here. So either we re-debate every change raised at FAC here on this page, before it is implemented or rejected - or some other format would be needed. And yes, some opposers may be 14 year-old ignoramuses - so some process needs to be present to quickly weed out opposers unsupported by solid referenced sources. The reason for lengthy and heated RCC FACs is this: Opposer says "This article is Catholic propaganda. The RCC is an evil organisation and this is a cover-up."

• Us: Which part of the article do you object to?
• Opposer: All of it, it's totally POV
• Us: That isn't helpful, please specify exactly where and how the article is POV
• Opposer: I don't have to. I don't have time. It's obvious.
• Us: No it isn't. If your objection is to be addressable you need to be specific.
• Opposer. It is addressable. Take the whole thing away and rewrite it!
• Us: No. You have to be specific.
• Opposer: You didn't include the 5 Million witches, scientists and healers the Catholic Church burned.
• Us: That's because it isn't in any of the real histories, even if you read it on a website. It's a legend.
• Opposer: No it isn't. It's true.
• Us: Our references say not. Can you provide any RELIABLE sources that make your point?
• Opposer: No. I haven't got time. You find them.
• Us: There are no such sources.
• Opposer: This shows how argumentative and POV the writers of this article are. They refuse to alter their article. My oppose stands. Xandar 00:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Other people may not find this fun and interesting but I had to laugh very hard when I saw Xandar's post - he is correct to a large extent, that is really what it seems like on our end with some opposers (This does not mean those opposers whose comments are helpful). Perhaps FAC opposers have a different view of us they would like to present? I read somewhere where Randomblue described me as someone who just argues argues argues! (And I thought it was the other guy, not me who was arguing! :-) NancyHeise ^talk 01:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is a double standard and frankly I think there is a high degree of ignorance about the history. Historically, European governments, nations, etc. worked very closely with the Catholic Church, but these nations were not the Catholic Church. I was recently reviewing some of the discussions regarding some of the reasons why the FAC failed. I made a late [26] to a conversation that I thought concerned a obvious confusion about who was doing what as Spain conquered the Aztecs and South America. Just because a group of conquistadors were Catholic does not make the Church liable for their actions. I have just finished two books, "Charlemagne" by Winston and "Conquistadors" by Levy; both books make it very clear that these individuals/groups may have been Catholic, but they acted as representatives of the king (or the king himself). Charlemagne was deeply religious and devoted to Catholicism, but he was not the Church even though he appointed Church leaders within his realm. I have little hope that this article can pass FAC because of a misunderstanding of history and the belief in the mythology of the evils of the Catholic Church. I know it is pessimistic, but this frame of mind removes the frustration when success is not achieved. --^StormRider 01:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Great! We will need you in the next FAC to help get that message across. Perhaps we can build that into the article text since it seems to be such a point of misunderstanding. I also have a Western Civilization textbook that says the same thing and we could use that source to supplement the info. NancyHeise ^talk 03:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the correct answer at FAC to an opposer writing "This article is Catholic propaganda. The RCC is an evil organisation and this is a cover-up." is not to reply. Sandy's good at weeding out genuine criticism from unhelpful/drive-by comments. All articles from all topics are subject to this kind of thing, to a greater or lesser extent. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerns with FAC POV comments

Please read user:Marskell's comments at this link, [27] beginning under Image concern, fourth paragraph down where he says we can't have our cake and eat it too, then goes on to suggest that the article must include mentions of the atrocities perpetrated upon the Amerindians by Conquistadores. Marskell is one of Sandy's respected FAC friends, he is the person who reviews FAR's and he was trying to help me make the article more NPOV sounding. I want to enlist his help but I think that his comments on that page underscore a significant problem that we face in coming to terms with what opposers consider NPOV version of this article. It seems that we are being asked to mention atrocities committed by Catholics who were not sanctioned by the Church to do those things and were even expressly fought against by the Church. Maybe there is a better way to present the Colonial period to bring this out. If there are so many people out there with such misconceptions about what the Church did or did not do in Latin America, we would be doing everyone a favor by presenting this a little better in the article. The link above contains quotes from university textbooks that I used to show Marskell the Church and Royal positions that were in opposition to what the Conquistadores were doing. I invite you to look at these quotes and conversations and try to think of a neat way to present this better in the article. NancyHeise ^talk 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article needs to be trimmed. We went into this last FAC with an article size of 11000 words, 68Kb - it grew as a result of FAC comments to 12099 words, 74Kb. I liked it better when it was a little more concise and I think we were asked to add a bunch of things that just made it more wordy but not necessarily better. I want to keep the "We Remember the Shoa" bit and incorporate the Dum Diversas in there better but a lot of what we were asked to include in the History section might be better if we found a way to be more concise with it all. NancyHeise ^talk 19:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I think that trimming the article has a lot to do with removing POV. Sometimes including one fact necessitates that we add more facts to balance out the section. Simply removing the first fact (if it does not significantly change the understanding of the subject) is enough to reach NPOV and has the side benefit of keeping the article smaller. I think that Marskell is right in some respects - missions did facilitate the spread of European disease to natives and contributed to some cultures being wiped out. If the article mentions the "good" things that missions did, for NPOV purposes it should also mention the "bad" things attributed to them. (At least from my reading of the missions in Texas, in many cases the "good" things couldn't have happened without the "bad", as the natives there wouldn't go to the missions unless they were afraid of dying; after an epidemic the missions had many more converts. Also, at least in Texas, the missionaries frequently wrote to the Spanish authorities begging for troops to force the natives to submit to Christianity/Catholicism. I don't know that the pope sanctioned this, but it was common practice among missions in the Americas. ) Or we don't mention the "good" or "bad" at all and just say that the RCC established missions through the Americas, with no further explanation of what the missions did. Karanacs (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are all the things I want to work out in this next session before peer review. I do think that the spread of disease is a notable part of the history and is actually already included in the article right now. The notable things that we should mention in RCC history are precisely the things that most people have the most misconceptions about. That is what makes this article interesting and worthwhile. I would rather have that than a boring FA that no one finds interesting or doesnt tell anyone anything they didn't already know. NancyHeise ^talk 19:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi I noticed the spot of bother above. I would be glad to help out getting this to FA as it seems well-deserved. I wrote Medieval philosophy and History of logic and I have a reasonable knowledge of the medieval period and bits of the reformation. Glad to help in any of that area but I have to say the relevant parts of this article seem already pretty accurate. Pax et bonum The Land Surveyor (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We could certainly use your help. It failed FAC because of a list of concerns SandyGeorgia left on my talk page here [28]. I am going to submit the article for peer review and several top FAC reviewers have agreed to come by and offer their comments and help. Please feel free to jump in and join us! My post above is something I think we could really help make more clear to Reader, it seems that a lot of people's accusations of POV come from a less than full understanding of the scholarly view of the Catholic Church role in history. There are also some rewordings that we could do here and there to present material in a more neutral way.NancyHeise ^talk 19:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, your two articles, Medieval philosophy and History of logic are very well done! You should submit them for GA then FA. NancyHeise ^talk 19:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How kind. I couldn't bear to go through the process, though I have been thinking about it. I have had a look at the link to the comments and will try and help. Pax et multum bonum. The Land Surveyor (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, yes, I am a Catholic but I am a convert which means I do not understand a word of Latin (except Pax!) NancyHeise ^talk 19:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Pax et bonum - peace and good[will]. Pax et multum bonum - peace and great good [to you]. I will have a look at the 'culture' section. There should perhaps be something about how the whole vocabulary of Western art and literature is shaped by the sacred scriptures and Church doctrine The Land Surveyor (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the page! Pax et multum bonum to you too! NancyHeise ^talk 21:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Note 1: "Roman"

Note 1 says: The prefix "Roman" was rejected, since it was only applied to the Catholic Church after the Reformation. As support, two sources are cited:

1. a statement by a pseudonymous writer in the 1903 American Ecclesiastical Review: "Twice during the nineteenth century, the name of the Church came up for authoritative decision, and in both cases the decision was that the ancient name should not be qualified by any prefix";
2. a statement by a certain Kenneth D. Whitehead that "The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included".

[Neither source justifies the causal phrase "since it (the prefix 'Roman') was only applied to the Catholic Church after the Reformation".]

That is one point of view. An existing opposite point of view of at least equal weight should be included for balance, namely: The term "Roman" is in fact (or also) commonly applied to the Catholic Church and is used by the Church itself.

The following quotations from reliable sources can be cited in support of this:

1. "The name 'Roman' has been adopted by the Church herself and recognized by the world at large as the proper appellation of the only religion which has any claim to true Catholicism" (American Ecclesiastical Review 1903, p. 77)
2. "(The Church) is called the 'holy (catholic apostolic) Roman Church' in the Profession of Faith of Trent and in the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith Dei Filius" (Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, supplementary note 13 to chapter I)
3. "The Catholic Church with capital C, more commonly known as the Roman Catholic Church" (Carolyn Osiek: Catholic or catholic? Biblical Scholarship at the Center in Journal of Biblical Literature, Volume 125, Number 1 / 2006)
4. "Mystici corporis Christi, n. 14, and Humani generis, n. 44. Pius XII had actually use the term 'Roman' Catholic Church" (Dominus Iesus: An Ecclesiological Critique, by Richard P. McBrien, Crowley-O'Brien-Walter Professor of Theology, University of Notre Dame, USA, in Centro Pro Unione Bulletin, No. 59/Spring 2001, p. 20
5. "Each of these documents presents three distinct statements as truths actually revealed by God ... They assert that:... It is a divinely revealed truth that this one true ecclesia is the Roman Catholic Church, the social unit properly termed 'the universal Church of the faithful'" (Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation in the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See. Westminster, MA: Newman Press, 1958, chapter I). Soidi (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Soidi, I see you are still arguing the same issue that has been resolved by consensus a short time ago here [29] . We all know that there are instances of when the Church has used Roman and that is why we have the note with the links discussing that issue. We used the sources we used because we all decided that they were the most authoritative and best met WP:RS, especially Kenneth Whitehead, who was the only one used by the top English speaking Church owned Catholic Media outlets to answer Catholic viewers and subscriber's questions regarding the Church's official name. I eliminated the portion of the note "since it was only applied to the Catholic Church after the Reformation" that was added by someone after consensus was reached and is really too detailed - that info can be found by clicking on links to sources. NancyHeise ^talk 15:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for eliminating the "since" clause. I pointed out its weakness only by the way, in parenthesis. I did not ask for its elimination. What I asked for was something else.

I trust that you will not merely continue to say that polling has produced a graven-in-stone decision for all time, and that, instead of that, you will again do as you did on the "common usage" question, when you at last did address my concerns, with the result that we have an agreed text.

You surely don't mean that Whitehead is of greater weight than the Second Vatican Council, quoted above. Or that one contributor to the American Ecclesiastical Review, a pseudonymous one at that, is more authoritative than another. You are aware that I do not believe that the word "Roman" was twice rejected during the nineteenth century: if one of the alleged cases concerned the First Vatican Council, you can see for yourself that the Council agreed only to separate the word "Roman" a little from the word "Catholic", but did not reject the word "Roman". I have not asked that that claim be deleted: I am only asking that you permit also a mention of what the several weighty sources that I have cited say. I have not asked that you admit the term "Roman Catholic" (although, as you know, the Church does use it): I am only asking that, on the basis of what the cited sources say, you allow a mention of the view that the word "Roman" is applied to the Church catholic or universal. Now I come to think of it, what polling has there been on this modest proposal, concerned with the adjective "Roman" alone?

So why not consider what the sources say? Soidi (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Because your positions have been soundly rejected over and over and over again by multitudes of editors to this article yet you keep bringing this subject up over and over and over again. At some point a person who doesnt listen to consensus is deemed to be a troll - someone whose point is just to pester the articles editors to the point of eliminating any real constructive change to the article. Your sources are never more authoritative than what we already have in the article and this has been agreed by consensus. I just looked at your sources again. There is nothing in Lumen Gentium to support your position and personal interpretation of an original document is original research. No where does Lumen say the official name of the Church is anything other than Catholic Church - Whitehead is a third party source that explains what happend at the first and second Vatican councils regarding the name. He is presented in Catholic media as "the answere" to "the question" of the Church's name. None of your sources are presented this way. The American Ecclesiastical Review you cite is an opinion by Hughes that my cited edition of the same journal answers. The fact that those answers are also backed up by Whitehead and another source written by a Protestant professor in a University press book adds weight to that argument. Also, editors agreed not to make the note go into unnecessary detail like big discussions on when Roman is used because that can be found in the very nice explanation given by the linked sources. Gosh Soidi, enough of this already, please, it is really becoming annoying and unproductive. Leave it alone. Just so you know, most of this talk page's archive 22 and much of archive 21 is you arguing with editors over this issue. See [30] and [31] [[[User:NancyHeise|NancyHeise]] ^talk 18:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the English version of Lumen Gentium on the Vatican website left in Latin the note that I quoted. Note 13 to Chapter I. I know that you don't know Latin; so, if you don't trust my translation, just ask anybody who does know Latin. Do you perhaps know French? The French version translates the Latin: "On dit " Sancta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecclesia ": dans Prof. fidei Trid., 1. c., et dans Conc. Vat. I, Sess. III, Const. dogm. de fide cath.: Denz. 1782 (3001)." Or German? "Die Formel "Sancta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecclesia" findet sich in Professio fidei Tridentina, a. a. O. und in Conc. Vat. I, Sess. III., Const. dogm. de fide cath.: Denz. 1782 (3001)." Or Italian? "È detta “Santa (cattolica apostolica) Romana Chiesa” nella Prof. fidei Trid., l.c. [nota prec.] e nel CONC. VAT. I, Cost. Dogm. sulla fede cattolica Dei Filius: Dz 1782 (3001) [Collantes 3.018]." Unfortunately the Spanish version omits the notes, as does the Czech. But the Portuguese and Swahili translations do have the notes, translated into those languages. And of course the Latin, both in the official printed texts and on the Vatican website, does have the notes, and in particular this one.

In short, Lumen Gentium, that highly reliable source, states that the Profession of Faith of Trent calls the Church - the Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him - the Holy Roman Church, and that the First Vatican Council called the Church, the same Church, the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church. Lumen Gentium alone (even apart from the other sources that say the same thing) should be authoritative enough for the statement that the Church does call itself "Roman". How can anyone consider an opinion piece by a private individual to be more authoritative than a statement by a General Council of the Catholic Church on what the Catholic Church is called?

"I just looked at your sources again", you say. You don't seem to have looked very carefully at Lumen Gentium. And what about the others? Don't they say that the Church is called "Roman"?

I have not asked you to eliminate what your sources say. But please open your eyes to the fact that other sources say something else, reliable sources, even authoritative ones. (They are more authoritative than yours, but I am not asking you to state this in the article.) Soidi (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I did get a response back from the retired academic who specialized in Church history regarding the official name of the Catholic Church. His quick response was, look at the Nicene Creed and the name of the Catechism. This only adds to the rather complete response that Catholic Church is the most correct, official name of the Church. Soidi, I acknowledge as does everyone else that the Church uses other names when the situation demands it, but Catholic Church is the name of the church. Cheers. --^StormRider 19:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your retired academic's off-the-cuff remark ignored what is in the Nicene Creed: that creed does not speak of "the Catholic Church"; it speaks instead of "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" (moreover without the definite article). Not even the Apostles' Creed speaks simply of "the Catholic Church": it speaks of "the holy catholic Church". The English translations I have given here are those in use in the English-speaking dioceses of the Church. That applies also to questions of capitalization. Soidi (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some confusion. Medieval writers did not refer to the 'Roman catholic' faith or church.

Et sic fides Catholica processionem ponit in divinis (and so the catholic faith supposes procession in the divine [persons]).

Dicit enim Ambrosius in libro I de fide Catholica (And so Ambrose says in book I of The Catholic faith)

haec positio est falsa, et a fide Catholica penitus aliena (this position is false, and wholly foreign to the Catholic faith)

si aliquid scripsissem aut dixissem quod a catholica fide dissentiret (if something I had written or said had dissented from the Catholic faith)

martyria in catholica ecclesia (the martyrs in the Catholic church

They did talk of the Roman church or 'romana ecclesia' but that means something quite different (look it up in the catholic encyclopedia).

Be careful also about referring to the use of capital letters. Medieval texts use capital letters in a quite different way. Best, The Land Surveyor (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also be careful about referring to 'the definite article'. The languages in which the creeds were expressed were not English. The Land Surveyor (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about what the Church calls itself now, not about medieval times.

I am careful about the definite article. The language in which the Nicene Creed, which Storm Rider's retired academic mistakenly suggested spoke of "the Catholic Church", was expressed was Greek; and Greek had (and still has) the definite article. The Nicene Creed speaks of "μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν", not of "τὴν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν".

Medieval texts did not "use capital letters in a quite different way": the distinction between upper- and lower-case letters is more recent. The distinction now exists, and we are talking about present-day usage, not about usage in, for instance, the time of Ignatius of Antioch, who, as the Catholic Encyclopedia states, used "catholic church" (or "CATHOLIC CHURCH") to refer to all Christians.

We are talking about what the Church calls itself now. The quite authoritative sources quoted state that now the Church applies the word "Roman" to itself, not only to the local church in Rome. Is that not clear? And why cannot the fact be mentioned that they do state this? I have not opposed mention of the opposite opinion. I do not even ask that the article comment on the relative weakness of the sources given for that opposite opinion. Soidi (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Soidi is an editor who has argued with multiple editors of this page for most of this page and the past two talk page archives of this article - all failing to win supporters of his extreme positions on article name. Consensus of editors agreed on the sources used to support article text and the note attached to the term "offical name is Catholic Church" a short time ago here [32] . We all know that there are instances of when the Church has used Roman and that is why we have the note with the links discussing that issue. We used the sources we used because we all decided that they were the most authoritative and best met WP:RS, especially Kenneth Whitehead, who was the only one used by the top English speaking Church owned Catholic Media outlets to answer Catholic viewers and subscriber's questions regarding the Church's official name.NancyHeise ^talk 16:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"We all know that there are instances when the Church has used 'Roman'." Thanks for stating this. Why then do you not allow that fact to be mentioned in the article? Why, after admitting that fact, do you allow a cited statement that "when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome" to stand as if this were agreed by all? The sources quoted above, in particular the document of the Second Vatican Council, say that it is not so; and I think that what the Second Vatican Council says deserves at least a mention. I also think that the Vatican website, which gives that Council's statement, is not inferior in authority to EWTN, which gives Whitehead's. "We all decided" is an unsatisfactory attempt at an explanation. Soidi (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article is Roman Catholic Church already, we don't need any more elaboration - it is a boring topic that no one wants to go into detail on. All the information regarding name issues is provided to Reader in the Note which also contains the links to even more detailed explanations from scholars. Everyone but you are in agreement with this treatment per [33]. NancyHeise ^talk 19:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is "The prefix 'Roman' was rejected" a fair summary of the situation, when "we all know that there are instances when the Church has used 'Roman'"? In combination with the affirmation that "Roman" was rejected, is "The Church herself, in her most authoritative and self-defining documents such as those of Vatican I and Vatican II uses the name 'Catholic Church'" a balanced objective statement, when no mention is made of the fact that in these same most authoritative and self-defining documents these same Councils use the name "Roman"? Does this manner of presenting the situation really provide readers with "all the information regarding name issues"? As for the "links to even more detailed explanations from scholars", I don't think Whitehead really qualifies as a "scholar"; nor do I think that the pseudonymous writer to the 1903 American Ecclesiastical Review can be classified as a scholar. I think a Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame and an author of a published study on "The Catholic Church and Salvation in the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See" merit the name of "scholar" much more than these two. Soidi (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, based on the results of over two archived talk pages plus this one, I am going to now consider you to be a Troll [34] to this Wikipedia article. I have attempted at length and many other editors have attempted at length to engage you in your arguments to the point of taking a poll [35] and help you see how you are so far off in your logic that no one agrees with your position but that does not matter to you. You still clog up our talk page with endless arguments that have already been endlessly discussed and addressed by well over 15 other editors to the page. I'm sorry but I will not longer be feeding you, I will be ignoring you. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 23:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on whatever number of pages it is, certain editors have shown that they will stick to their fixed ideas even if these ideas are contradicted by evident facts, preferring to close their eyes to the facts. All they do is to repeat: "The only official name that the Church uses is 'the Catholic Church'", treating this practically as an unquestionable divinely revealed Wikipedia truth.

You, Nancy, seemed to have done better. You did accept the evidence that the Church (not just the local church at Rome) does use the title "Roman". But you still refused to allow Wikipedia to mention this evidence even as an opinion held by the reliable sources I have quoted above, rather than as fact. Your refusal now even to discuss the matter seems to indicate that you too are a believer in the "divinely revealed Wikipedia truth" theory.

The article, as edited by you, presents as fact a view backed merely by "an opinion piece advancing one side of the debate, published by a partisan publication, and demonstrably wrong in at least some of its facts" (not my words), by the opinion of a pseudonymous writer to a 1903 monthly, and by an 1889 statement that the Church authorities disliked the name "Roman Catholic Church" and replaced it with others (note the plural). You refuse to permit the article even to mention the view - it is really a demonstrable fact, not just a view; but even as a view you exclude it - that the Church calls itself "Roman". Yet this has been stated not only by the academics I have cited above, but even by a General Council of the Church!

Is it because you have no reasonable reply to give to the overwhelming evidence that you declare you just won't discuss the matter further? Soidi (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As an educator in the system, I can tell you that this discussion is a waste of time for all. We need to focus on the faith.

Skwing (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

First, a quick salutation to Nancy Heise - I am aware that you have spent a lot of work on this and other articles related to the RCC and I wish to express my appreciation to you for that.

Second, I will comment that I have been editing Wikipedia for almost 3 years and was involved in this "Roman" question early in my editing career. The issue never completely goes away, does it? My participation has dropped in the past few months and the RCC-related articles have not been the focus of my work in over a year. I'm not that knowledgeable about this topic anyway. My attention was drawn to this Talk Page today by a message left for me by soidi.

Having read only this section and not any of the previous discussion, I will say that my opinion about "Note 1" is that it is a horrible compromise. Why? First and most importantly, because it fails to spend effort to explain the use of "catholic" to describe churches that are not in communion with Rome. Anglicans consider themselves "catholic" and many Protestants consider themselves to be part of the "one holy catholic and apostolic church". If this issue is not addressed or at least referenced to by a link, we are missing an important doctrinal issue and our omission betrays a pro-RCC bias. This is bad. We need to draw a distinction between the "catholic church" and the "Catholic church". "Note 1" fails to do this and even goes so far as to suggest that "catholic" most commonly refers to the "Roman Catholic Church". I don't know what consensus blessed this note but I would guess that there are at least a few Wikipedia editors that would protest this.

I am not as knowledgeable as other editors of this article but I am not convinced that even the Catholic Church considers itself to synonymous with the "catholic church". Can someone explain to me what the definition of "catholic" is from the POV of the RCC? Does it, for example, consider the Orthodox churches to be "catholic"? How about the Anglican church? Or Protestant churches? Does the RCC consider "catholic" to be synonymous with "in communion with the bishop of Rome"? I don't think so but, as I said, I'm not an expert in this sort of thing. If you guys have already been around this block before, just point me to the appropriate spot in the archives.

Personally, I'm OK with the assertion that the RCC calls itself "the Catholic Church". My concern is that the reader be presented with an explanation of the different opinions around the words "catholic" and "Catholic". I'm not sure where this should happen. It could be in the lead, in the body of the article, in a note, or in a linked article. I just want to make sure this is addressed somewhere.

Thanx.--Richard (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Richard, good to see you editing this article. First off, I think there is confusion over the scope of the article. This article is limited to the RCC and not catholic. Most of your comments should be found there and not here. The topic should be addressed in a focused, concise manner, which if very difficult given the the history the Catholic Church. I am not opposed to addressing the difference between Catholic and catholic in a brief manner, but it should be treated fully in the subarticle cited above. Does this make sense to you? --^StormRider 00:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Storm Rider. Richard, FYI, previous and very recent vast discussion on this matter is here [36] and this entire archive here [37] where consensus was reached regarding the first sentence in the lead [38] including the note [39]. The references supporting the note provide Reader with links to the actual sources where Reader can learn more about the use of the term "catholic" including its application and use by other churches in particular this [40] book by Walsh which is our footnote number four and is also a university textbook. Cheers! NancyHeise ^talk 02:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The references "supporting" the note direct Reader to links to actual sources where Reader can find statements supporting the opinion presented in the note, while hiding the fact that there are reliable sources, such as the five listed above, that support a different opinion. Walsh's book, to which Nancy refers, is cited only in support of the statement that the term "catholic" is commonly used to refer to the body also known as the Roman Catholic Church and its members. But there is no reference to Walsh's book where the note makes the disputed claim that "the prefix 'Roman' was rejected". Was that because Walsh disagrees with that statement? He has a whole chapter (the first after the Introduction) titled "The Church, Catholic and Roman". Is this exclusion of dissenting sources in conformity with the basic Wikipedia policy of NPOV? Soidi (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The editors of this article have calmly and reasonably discussed this at length with numerous editors, most of them non-Catholics, and come to definitive and overwhelming agreement on the note [41] after considering Soidi's arguments. NPOV does not apply to undisputed facts. Soidi's arguments have been persistently rejected by every editor who has considered them because they twist the facts represented in the sources and present as sources references that say nothing about the Church's official name. This lack of respect for consensus and persistent illogical arguing has led me to believe that Soidi is a troll [42] to this page, not interesting in improving it but in disrupting the page editors. NancyHeise ^talk 13:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, it's one thing to say the Church is Catholic and Roman, and another to title it "Roman Catholic Church", or for that matter, "Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church". Look, for instance, at Walsh p.21-22 discussing the Eastern Catholic churches: "They are in communion with the Church of Rome, but certainly cannot properly be described as 'Roman Catholic'.... Their existence, however, poses a question: what should this Church, which has so far been discussed under the name the Roman Catholic Church, properly be called?... From now on, therefore, this book will talk about the Catholic Church, without the additional epithet 'Roman', although it will normally be discussing Roman, or Latin, rite Catholics." Gimmetrow 14:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, have I said above that the article should use the term "Roman Catholic"? You will find I wrote: "I have not asked that you admit the term 'Roman Catholic' (although, as you know, the Church does use it): I am only asking that, on the basis of what the cited sources say, you allow a mention of the view that the word 'Roman' is applied to the Church catholic or universal. Now I come to think of it, what polling has there been on this modest proposal, concerned with the adjective 'Roman' alone?" The Second Vatican Council did not declare that the Profession of Faith of Trent used the term "Roman Catholic": it only said that the Profession of Faith of Trent applied the term "Roman Church" to the Church described by the Second Vatican Council as the Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him. The Second Vatican Council did not say that the First Vatican Council called the Church "the Roman Catholic Church": it only said that the First Vatican Council called the Church "the holy catholic apostolic Roman Church". Surely the Second Vatican Council is a reliable source on this matter. Why is it excluded? I repeat, I am not asking that Nancy's view be excluded from the article, only that mention be made of the fact that sources such as the Council disagree. So on what basis does she claim that the statement is undisputed? Soidi (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, as I pointed out above, 'Roman church' does not mean the same as 'Roman catholic'. I am still at a loss to understand what your argument is. The Land Surveyor (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

To repeat what I have stressed just above, I am not talking about the phrase "Roman Catholic", but only about the word "Roman". The Second Vatican Council applies this word to the Church as a whole, not just to the local Church in Rome. Surveyor maintains that the word applies only to the local Church, but she/he must recognize that sources such as the Second Vatican Council present a different view. Is there any reason other than POV-pushing for excluding so authoritative a view from the article? Soidi (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What Ignatius of Antioch meant

It is not universally agreed that, when Ignatius of Antioch spoke of "the catholic Church", he meant precisely what is now understood by "the (Roman) Catholic Church". Three reputable sources say that by that phrase he meant "all Christians" (Catholic Encyclopedia), "Christians collectively" (Encyclopedia Americana), "Christians everywhere" (Encyclopedia of World Religions). Since the phrase used by Ignatius is mentioned in the context of discussion of the name(s) given to the (Roman) Catholic Church, what these sources say of Ignatius's meaning is decidedly relevant. But while another editor allowed this mention of what Ignatius meant to stand,[43] N. wants it removed. Why? What reason can there be other than to push the point of view that she is pushing also by eliminating the sources referred to immediately above, which also do not reflect her point of view? Her attitude does not seem to be in harmony with Wikipedia principles. Soidi (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Ignatius of Antioch was alive at a time 300 YEARS before any split in the Entire Christian Church, the only Church that existed at the time was the Catholic Church. I don't understand the point here? There was only one Church. The Only other Church outside at this time that we know of are the Ethiopian Churches, the Assyrian Church and possibly the Armenian Church - and all these being outside the Roman Empire, would naturally mean that Ignatius was addressing the only Church he would have known, the Church at Rome. Gabr-el 07:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignatius was addressing the only Church he knew, which, in spite of what you wrote, did include the Churches in Ethiopia (if it existed, since Christianity is traditionally said to have been brought to that country by Saint Frumentius in the fourth century), "Assyria" and Armenia. In other words, Ignatius of Antioch was addressing the Church at Alexandria? Or Antioch itself? Or Jerusalem? Or ... Why Rome only? You yourself have admitted that the distinction did not yet exist. Soidi (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this Cambridge University Press scholarly work [44], Ignatius statement is explained as specifically talking about Catholic Christianity and not other spritualized forms and not gnosticism - which is in direct contradiction to what Soidi is trying to put into the article text by saying that Ignatius was talking about all Christians, something none of the sources support, even the non-scholarly websites used as references by Soidi against consensus of editors and without anyone supporting those edits or sources. The Cambridge University Press book explains all of this in the paragraph underneath the Ignatius quote. Further, the editors of this article have calmly and reasonably discussed this at length with numerous editors, most of them non-Catholics, and come to definitive and overwhelming agreement on the note [45] after considering Soidi's arguments. NPOV does not apply to undisputed facts. Soidi's arguments have been persistently rejected by every editor who has considered them because they twist the facts represented in the sources and present as sources references that say nothing about the Church's official name or in this latest instance, sources that are not scholarly works and do not support what Soidi is putting into the article text. This lack of respect for consensus and persistent illogical arguing has led me to believe that Soidi is a troll [46] to this page, not interesting in improving it but in disrupting the page editors. Soidi, please do not eliminate or change referenced article text that has been extensively discussed and agreed by consensus. You must gain consensus before changing text that has been added in this way. Your persistent efforts to debate this has not won anyone to your ideas because your logic is very flawed and unsupported by the sources. Please understand that we can not place inaccurate info into the article and then put references after that inaccurate info to make it look like it is accurate -which is what you are doing with your edits. NancyHeise ^talk 14:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

N., what is in question is the meaning of a phrase used 1900 years ago, not what is the official name of the (R)CC. If you want to have Ignatius's phrase in the article, its meaning must be clarified. As long as the phrase is kept, the question of its meaning is decidedly relevant. Instead of name-calling and making generic declarations about non-scholarly sources, inaccurate info and unsupported statements, please answer the following concrete questions. Is it inaccurate to say that, according to the three cited sources, what Ignatius of Antioch meant by "catholic Church" was "all Christians", "Christians collectively", "Christians everywhere"? Do you consider the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Americana, and the Encyclopedia of World Religions to be unreliable sources, all three of them? Or alternatively, what sources that say the opposite to what these three sources say are of so much greater authority that these three deserve no mention whatever? In relation to your deletions of what these three sources say, permit me to repeat your own words: "Please do not eliminate or change referenced article text". Soidi (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the note can specify that the meaning of his comments are unclear; many believe it refers to what is now the Roman Catholic Church, others to all Christianity? Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with Karanacs - if, of course, sources are given for the statement that many believe that the Roman Catholic Church is what Ignatius meant by "the catholic Church". The writing by Linda Woodhead, which N. referred to at the start of her last comment may contain that statement, but it is hard to find. Would N. please quote Linda Woodhead's exact words? In the page to which N.'s link pointed, that statement does not appear. Has N. forgotten that Ignatius said the Gnostics were not Christians? Excluding Gnostics still left "catholic Church" meaning all Christians. Soidi (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Per the source I provided - a Cambridge University Press by Professor Linda Woodhead, a sociologist of religion [47] entitled An Introduction to Christianity page 34 [48] where she explains Ignatius' comments and how this "Catholic Christianity" differs from other "more spiritualised forms of Christianity and gnosticism". On page 35 she continues to go into Catholic Christianity and specifically names the church in Rome as "the most important stronghold of the Catholic tradition, it was here that the Catholic Church was nurtured even when it was making little headway elsewhere." Soidi's references are not scholarly works, we do not cite New Advent, it is a poor source and we don't cite encyclopedias other than those considered collections of scholarly works otherwise we could have just used Encyclopedia Brittanica to create the entire site. Also, I don't see where New Advent supports the statement "to designate all Christians". I would like some help from admins in dealing with Soidi because it is apparent that he wants to insert info against consensus and using sources that are not welcome on Wikipedia. Karanacs, can you help me here? I really feel that this might need to go to the administration board, Soidi is trolling this page. NancyHeise ^talk 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware that there's anything wrong with the Catholic Encyclopedia as a source. It was largely written by university professors, and it received Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur designations. Wikipedia has a page at Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics with instructions on how to use content from it for Wikipedia. It certainly urges caution in its use, but does not ban it. I'm not aware of any policy prohibiting the use of encyclopedias.

The two reasons to take care with it are firstly that it's close to a century old, and secondly that it is written from an openly and exclusively Roman Catholic perspective; but the same objections certainly apply to the American Ecclesiastical Review of 1903, which is cited in the same section.

The relevant Catholic Encyclopedia mention of the term is in its article on Ignatius, under "Contents of the letters" - 'in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians'.

I think the apparent difference between the views of the various works referred to actually stems from different meanings of "all Christians" - I don't think that most users of the term 'Christian' would encompass gnostics in that definition; which makes the comparison "Some believe the statement was meant to designate all Christians, others believe it to be specifically speaking of Catholic Christianity excluding gnosticism and other forms" a false dichotomy, because those other forms are not generally considered parts of Christianity. (And, of course, to state that in using the term "Catholic" he meant only to designate those parts of Christianity which are "Catholic" is recursive and meaningless in itself.) TSP (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) This line of discussion, as well as anything Soidi says for the last 253 edits, escapes me. What exactly is the proposal? Soidi, what do you want? The most I get out of you is some insistence to acknowledge that the Catholic Church also calls herself Roman Catholic. This is meaningless because the article already states that; please refer to the title of the article. Frankly, my eyes have long since rolled to the back of my head. Please do not argue, but just tell us what you want, don't defend it, just let us know what it will take for you to stop harping on...I still don't know what. --^StormRider 21:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What do I want, Rider? Simply that N. should stop removing the statement that, according to three reliable sources, Ignatius of Antioch meant, by the phrase "catholic Church" all Christians. If Ignatius's statement is in the article, an explanation of what it meant is highly relevant.

N., I thought we were supposed not to interpret the sources, but just to state what they say. The three that I cited expressly say that Ignatius meant "all Christians collectively everywhere". You have only inconclusively argued that, in the one source you cite, "Catholic Christianity" does not mean what an Anglican would say it means but instead must mean (R)CC. Your source does not state this (references elsewhere in Linda Woodhead's book to "Roman Catholicism" suggest that Woodhead would in fact disagree); so it is only your interpretation. Why not accept Karanacs's suggestion, cite some sources that do say that the Roman Catholic Church is what Ignatius meant by "the catholic Church" (there are some such sources), and stop limiting the article to your views alone?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, as cited, says "In Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians" Who do you think wrote Smyrnaeans 8? ("New Advent", to which you attribute this statement, is not the Catholic Encyclopedia. It came into existence decades later.) The vast majority of the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia were written by recognized scholars in the field about which they wrote. I do not know enough about the other two encyclopedias that I cited; but I have no reason to think them substantially less scholarly than Linda Woodhead's book. Soidi (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What N. attributes to Woodhead, Woodhead simply does not state. I have added a few more sources that expressly say that, for Ignatius of Antioch, "catholic" simply meant "universal", "all". Soidi (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any real dispute on what Ignatius meant - he was pretty clear. He meant the whole of orthodox Christianity at that point (the united universal church), as distinct from groups like the gnostics (not nowadays generally considered Christian). The dispute is over what body, if any, equates to that designation now, as there have been numerous splits in (or from, depending on how you look at it) that church. I'm not sure that alleging a dispute over Ignatius' intended meaning really helps. We simply have to phrase it in a way that doesn't imply anything beyond what he actually stated.

What I would like to fix in that paragraph is the categorical statement "the prefix Roman was rejected" - I think it's been shown that, while this is certainly Whitehead's opinion, it's very much a matter of interpretation and dispute. TSP (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I would add that Ignatius did not consider the Gnostics/Docetists to be Christians at all (see Smyrnaeans 2). Soidi (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great, since we are all in agreement, I have changed the sentence to reflect this consensus because it is also what Linda Woodward says in her book which is the most scholarly reference of all of them. We don't have to have five references for a non-contentious topic and WP:RS suggests we use the ones that are considered most scholarly which are those published by university presses and written by university professors. I have adjusted the note in light of this. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, look at what N. thinks we are all in agreement on! Woodhead does not say that by using the term "Catholic Church" Ignatius intended "to describe the bishop-led body of Christians which included the Roman church but excluded other forms of Christianity and gnosticism". As several sources has clearly stated, in Ignatius's time "catholic" meant no more than "universal", "all". Woodhead does not seem to have addressed the question the question of what Ignatius himself meant by that phrase. Soidi (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems that she does say this which is why I included the link to her exact quote. I re-added her statement, which is what all are agreeing to above this conversation, including you. I kept your addition too. It appears that we are stuck having this ridiculous argument with you forever on this page. Not a problem, I guess we should expect problems like this, thankfully we have a lot of help in combating your flaws of logic. NancyHeise ^talk 19:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It may seem so to you, N., but I do not see where on page 34 Woodhead says what you attribute to her. To me she seems to quote that passage of Ignatius, not to say anything about what Ignatius meant by the phrase "catholic Church" within it, but only to show that the passage as a whole displays Ignatius's (to her mind) "patriarchal", clergy-centred vision of the Church. She makes no comment whatever on the word "catholic". Am I wrong? Soidi (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, we have editors who can read page 34 and 35 of Woodward's book linked in the article text to see that she is explaining Ignatius quote exactly the way I have paraphrased it in the article text, something that is not in dispute either based on the agreement shown by editors above. Soidi, you are a very good troll, congratulations. You are doing a very good job of causing endless conversation about nothing and keeping us all from doing any work on the article at all. Maybe there is an award on Wikipedia for that. NancyHeise ^talk 20:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The link you gave only led to page 34, but I have now examined carefully page 35 also and see no statement by Woodhead there about what Ignatius of Antioch meant by "catholic Church". Remember that the only reason Woodhead gives for quoting the passage of Ignatius that contains the phrase "catholic church" (i.e. universal Church) is to show that "the bishop, in Ignatius' view, is the very image of 'type' of God (typos theou). As Ignatius puts it in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (8)):" The quotation from Ignatius follows, and Woodhead then continues with her remarks about Ignatius's "inherently patriarchal" vision of the Church whereby "God is a male God and Father, and his" (God's or, more likely, Ignatius's?) "supreme headship of the church is not unlike the male headship of the household that was enshrined in Roman law as patria potestas (the power of the father)." Woodhead makes no remark whatever, either on page 34 or on page 35 about the meaning of "catholic church" as used by Ignatius. Your own remarks on the question are thus unsupported Original Research and inadmissible in a Wikipedia article. Soidi (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think WP policies just confuse the issue. Woodhead rather carefully refers to "Catholic Christianity" and "Catholic tradition". In context, is there a reason to believe this means more than excluding Gnostic and non-hierarchical traditions? Gimmetrow 06:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Is there a reason to believe that Woodhead says anything whatever about what the word "catholic" meant for Ignatius? The question here is what Ignatius meant by "catholic/universal church", not what Woodhead, a couple of millennia later, means by it. She uses Ignatius's text as proof that his vision of the Church was patriarchal (in the sense given to this word in feminist writing). She then proceeds to say that a patriarchal vision and exclusion of women from clerical orders distinguished Catholic Christianity from "more spiritualised forms of Christianity and gnosticism" (her view, not one she attributes to Ignatius) and adds that another distinguishing mark (again in her own view, not attributed to Ignatius) was the Catholic church's more positive view of marriage and the household (quite clearly unrelated to any part of Ignatius's text). So where does Woodhead make a statement about what Ignatius meant when he spoke of the catholic/universal Church?
2. Within WP, WP policies do count. Soidi (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is part of a footnote saying "Catholic Church" is the "official name". Using Ignatius' quote to support that requires that when Ignatius refers to "Catholic church", he's using that as a name for the same group this article is about. Woodhead doesn't take it quite that way. No point bringing in WP policies when the source doesn't support an interpretation. Gimmetrow 14:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The source doesn't support the interpretation that has been put on it. Soidi (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. We placed the comment about Ignatius in this note in response to a FAC reviewer request in the last FAC. It was agreed to inclusion in this latest consensus on the note here [49] . Gimmetrow is not agreeing to your accusation of WP:OR Soidi, he was asking a question which I am answering with this repost of what I posted earlier above : [50]. Please do not again remove sourced text, I think that is called vandalism. NancyHeise ^talk 15:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is precisely this insistent repetition of the claim that a consensus of editors has declared that the source does support the interpretation that has been put on it, and that that declaration is unquestionable, no matter how many sources contradict it and no matter how authoritative they are. Soidi (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote shows that the term "Catholic church" was used rather early in church history. The 21st-century church certainly claims this phrase and it needs to be in the article, but I don't buy that it's the one-and-only "official" name. Gimmetrow 16:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, the article text does not say "one and only" it says "in its most authoritative and self defining documents". Also, Soidi is edit warring with me, removing sourced content which then makes the statement not reflect what the reference supports. It would be nice to have some admin help here. Soidi is an obvious troll to this page and the history of conversations with him show zero support for his illogical arguments. NancyHeise ^talk 16:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, Nancy, cool down. If anyone is doing edit warring, it is you. Why did you revert my last edit, which only consisted in removing two unnecessary empty spaces, in order to allow me to make an appeal to you to consider the evidence? I did not remove sourced content. What you attribute to Woodhead is in fact unsourced. Please read what has been written above on this question not only by me, but also by Gimmetrow, and then ask yourself do you sincerely believe that Woodhead says anything at all about what Ignatius intended by using the phrase about the catholic/universal Church. Remember too that it was you who recently added Woodhead to the article: you cannot claim that there has been a consensus in favour of including your mention of her. Soidi (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, evidence of your edit warring and removal of sourced content is here [51], here [52], here [53], here [54], and here [55]. I had to add Woodhead because you added information that made the statement incorrect. Every time you add something, it is without support from any editors and out of disrespect for the vast consensus vote that was taken by so many editors who have tried to understand your arguments but can find no sense to them as evidenced here [56], this entire archive here [57] as well as our consensus vote on the note here [58] and consensus vote on lead sentence here [59]. NancyHeise ^talk 17:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What consensus vote has there been for your interpretation of Woodhead? Please consider the evidence about what she does say, instead of merely attributing bad faith to me. Soidi (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As is your usual method, a method consistent with that described in the definition of troll [60], the answer to your question has already been answered in my previous post. NancyHeise ^talk 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"I had to" is not evidence of consensus. Soidi (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I had no consensus to change the note and neither did you so I think we should return the note back to the form agreed upon by consensus. Your addition made an incorrect statement. My addition was made out of respect for your addition to try to help your incorrect statement return to factual accuracy but since neither of us had consensus to change anything, the note should be returned to its former consensus state. NancyHeise ^talk 16:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you forgotten that on 30 October you agreed that the purpose of the vote was not to declare the note fixed, as Marauder too said in agreeing to TSP's remark: "If anyone comes along and improves (the note), it should definitely not be reverted simply because it is different from what was once voted on on the talk page. Every edit deserves to be evaluated; if it is worse than what preceded it, of course change it back (or to some compound version with the merits of both versions). I think it is a bad idea, and contrary to Wikipedia's principles, to declare any part of the article to be fixed by a vote and not open to the normal process of incremental change and improvement without some special consensus-changing procedure"? Why do you keep your mind closed to new evidence that has been produced - even to the abstract possibility that new evidence might appear? Soidi (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No, which is why I attempted to help your previous edit by making factually correct instead of eliminating it. I have not kept my mind closed to new evidence, everything that you have presented except for Lightfoot has been the same evidence that everyone has already considered before the consensus vote. NancyHeise ^talk 21:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Factually correct" by claiming that Woodhead says what she does not say! You consider the statement by the Second Vatican Council to be "no new evidence"! - why are you refusing to answer the question "Does it or does it not quote the Profession of Faith of Trent and the First Vatican Council as calling the Church the Roman Church"? That evidence was brought up after the vote, as were the other sources that showed that the Church is called "Roman". Even the question itself of the name "Roman Church" had not been brought up at the time of your vote, which, as you accepted at the time, was not intended to freeze the note. By the way, I have just come across another source that comments on what it calls the Church's "self-chosen description" in the Trent profession of faith; but surely the Second Vatican Council's citation of that profession of faith is enough. Soidi (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, it appears to me that you are interpreting documents yourself. We can not do that it is considered WP:OR. If a scholar states that these are evidence of Church official name, please provide the book name, author and quote where this is stated. My sources do not say what you are saying but expressly explains how and in what context the Church used those terms in opposition to your personal interpretation which I can not use. NancyHeise ^talk 09:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Does it (Lumen gentium) or does it not quote the Profession of Faith of Trent and the First Vatican Council as calling the Church the Roman Church?" Why do you not reply to this question about what a secondary source says? Soidi (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not allow us to interpret the meanings of original documents, even if we are experts, it does not allow it and calls that WP:OR. We are only allowed to cite books that have interpreted them. Because the most authoritative source, the one that is overseen by the Roman Curia, EWTN presents Whitehead's explanation of Church name, we use that. You have not provided any source that explains the Church name using your personal interpretation of Lumen. You need to find a source Soidi, no matter how many times you say the same thing, it doesnt matter what you think, it only matters what scholars think. NancyHeise ^talk 11:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Quoting, Nancy, is not interpreting. The EWTN website is not overseen by the Roman Curia. Soidi (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Roman" (continued)

This whole discussion gets sidetracked so easily. The main points are that while the church is "Roman", it is often called "Roman Catholic Church" by outsiders with a point-of-view the church doesn't accept. Church documents predominantly use "Catholic Church", and "Catholic Church" is also a common name for the church by those outside the church. We need to find a way to say this without getting bogged down in minor issues. How about: "The Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church..." with a note: "The Church accepts and uses "Roman" as a descriptive adjective, but rejects "Roman" as a restrictive adjective, as it believes itself to be the only Catholic Church." Would something like this get us anywhere? Gimmetrow 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Because that formula was expressly rejected by the consensus vote here [61] where "or" was placed side by side with "official" and "official" was overwhelmingly preferred as long as we had the note explaining it. NancyHeise ^talk 17:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking about the note. Gimmetrow 17:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides going against consensus, the problem that note would invite would be WP:OR because no reference supports such wording even though we have evidence that the Church has used "Roman" in some documents particularly those dealing with discussions with the Anglican Union. I wanted to place info in the note to mention this but none of the sources discuss the documents dealing with the Anglican Union, they only say that the adjective Roman is used by the Church herself when discussing the diocese of Rome and discusses how it was a term forced into use by those who rejected the Church's claims of being the one true church (all of this is already in the linked references). It is also true that when Roman is used by the Church, it excludes the Eastern Catholic Churches which is one of the reasons why editors insisted on the term "officially". NancyHeise ^talk 18:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to the ECCs, "Roman Catholic Church" is often a shorthand for the Roman or latin rite. Anyway, Cardinal Vaughan once said:

Accordingly, at the Newcastle Conference of the Catholic Truth Society (Aug., 1901) the cardinal explained clearly to his audience that "the term Roman Catholic has two meanings; a meaning that we repudiate and a meaning that we accept." The repudiated sense was that dear to many Protestants, according to which the term Catholic was a genus which resolved itself into the species Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Greek Catholic, etc. But, as the cardinal insisted, "with us the prefix Roman is not restrictive to a species, or a section, but simply declaratory of Catholic." The prefix in this sense draws attention to the unity of the Church, and "insists that the central point of Catholicity is Roman, the Roman See of St. Peter. "Roman Catholic" . Catholic Encyclopedia. 1913.

Long ago I proposed a page dealing just with the naming of the church, including content like this. Gimmetrow 18:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some of that already on one of the Catholic pages, I'll have to search. For posterity I am placing the following quote here on this talk page.

The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870 conducted a successful campaign to insure that the phrase 'Roman Catholic' was nowhere included in any of the Council's offical documents about the Church herself. Nowhere in the sixteen documents of the Second Vatican Council is Roman Catholic found. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as 'I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.' ...when the adjective 'Roman' is applied to the Church herself, it refers to - the diocese of Rome!"

From page 301 of the book One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic by Kenneth Whitehead whose excerpt from this book was used by the most prominent English Speaking Catholic owned media outlets (Eternal Word Television Network and Our Sunday Visitor) to offer subscribers and viewers an offical answer to questions about the Church's official name. NancyHeise ^talk 18:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So we're at a note saying something like "The Church accepts and uses "Roman" as a descriptive adjective, but rejects "Roman" as a restrictive adjective; 'Roman Catholic' is not found in the official documents of either the first or second Vatican councils." Gimmetrow 18:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

But "Roman" is found in the official documents of both Councils. The Second Vatican Council quotes the Profession of Faith of Trent and the First Vatican Council as saying that the Church, the whole Church, not just the diocese of Rome, nor just the Latin Church, is called the Roman Church. And this is not the only source that says so. So on what grounds does Nancy say: "It is also true that when Roman is used by the Church, it excludes the Eastern Catholic Churches"? Soidi (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, please provide references to books that support your assertions, those councils mentions of Roman are not mentions of the Church's official name. Gimmetrow, the sentence you constructed is factually incorrect because Roman is found in certain mentions of those Vatican council documents. The link to Whitehead's book excerpt discusses these instances and expressly discusses how the term is used which is not a reference to the Church's official name about herself. NancyHeise ^talk 18:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your own source says "Roman Catholic" isn't used. Rephrase note to make it say what you think it should. But so far I haven't seen a source saying "the official name of the church is the 'Catholic Church'". "Properly called" for theological reasons is not "official name". Gimmetrow 18:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus agreed that the Whitehead source and the other sources support use of the term "official" [62] and that the note supports that wording [63] . NancyHeise ^talk 19:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Nancy's request for references, above:

Where does any Council mention any name of the Church as "the Church's official name"?! The Second Vatican Council says the Church "is called" ("dicitur") the Roman Church. That should be enough. I was surprised that you should ask me for references. I expected that request rather from Gimmetrow. I thought you would remember that I gave the references above (#Note 1: "Roman"), where, specially for you, I provided links also to the Vatican website's French, German and Italian versions of the Second Vatican Council's statement, as well as the Latin original. Soidi (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not a magic word that freezes everything. Please consider the evidence. Soidi (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your references do not say what the Church official name is or is not. The quote from the source supporting official name above expressly says this "the phrase 'Roman Catholic' was nowhere included in any of the Council's offical documents about the Church herself. Nowhere in the sixteen documents of the Second Vatican Council is Roman Catholic found. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as 'I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.'" Is this not express evidence that the official name of the Church is Catholic Church? The reference says Roman Catholic is not used in the official documents about the Church herself and then says Catholic Church is. NancyHeise ^talk 19:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

But "Roman Church" is found. Soidi (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That fact that, while the Pope signed as "Bishop of the Catholic Church", the other Bishops did not sign as "Bishops of the Catholic Church" counts rather against the idea that "Catholic Church" is the official name of the Church. Is it not rather a sign that by "catholic" in the Pope's formula is meant "universal", "the whole"? Soidi (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course "Roman" is found in official documents. The Church accepts use of "Roman" in some contexts. Are you claiming Whitehead claims the Church uses the term Roman as an adjective restricting "Catholic Church"? What sort of "official name" would "Catholic Church" be, according to Whitehead, in your opinion? Gimmetrow 19:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I think your version of the sentence is poorly worded, sorry. You know I appreciate your help but I don't think your proposal is an improvement. Perhaps this can be taken up in the upcoming peer review. However, please consider that I sided with you and Soidi in the last FAC hoping to come to agreement and was vastly outvoted by consensus, I am now just trying to respect that consensus. I wish you and Soidi would too. NancyHeise ^talk 19:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about wording. I'm concerned about content. The article currently claims that "Catholic Church" is the official name of this church. Is it? What sort of name? The note doesn't really justify it. Gimmetrow 19:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. Perhaps in the next peer review we will find a better wording. Do you think that Catholic Church is not the official name? Do you have sources to support this idea? No, no one does, but we do have sources that support that Catholic Church is the official name which is why we have the article text we have. Although many have searched, no one has come up with any source that says the official name is anything other than Catholic Church. I don't see how you can ask me to put anything else into the article based on this. NancyHeise ^talk 19:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the church has an "official name" in the sense that, say, The Episcopal Church has an official name. Whitehead doesn't say it has one, either - he's rather saying "Roman Catholic Church" isn't it. Gimmetrow 19:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In other words, Nancy, you are putting an interpretration on a source, not providing a statement by a source. Soidi (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow and Soidi, this was discussed earlier and no one agreed with your interpretations which is why we took the vote on the note [64] and the lead sentence [65], both overwhelmingly supporting article text. Whitehead says Catholic Church is it. Not only does he say this, but it is presented in Catholic media as the answer to just that question which makes it even more solid as a reference. The reason why we took the vote on the note was to find out if editors agreed on what the sources were saying, it is not just Whitehead saying this either, there are a total of three references supporting the article text on official name . NancyHeise ^talk 19:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

None of these sources says: "The official name of the Church is 'The Catholic Church'". The 1889 writer says rightly that "Roman Church" is applied to the local Church in Rome, but the implication that it is applied only to the local Church in Rome is contradicted by much weightier authorities, which you have refused to allow even to be mentioned in the article. Soidi (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Page 136 of the American Ecclesiatical Review source goes into great detail about the name also and uses the term offical name. McClintock uses the term official name and so does Whitehead. It is very obvious what all three of these sources are agreeing to and because the consensus of editors has agreed that these sources support the article text and expressly disagree with your arguments in spite of your vast efforts, I have no choice but to respect that consensus, I wish you would too. NancyHeise ^talk 19:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. It is not what they say. Soidi (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

All three of these sources are saying "Roman Catholic Church" is not the "official name" of the church. That's fine. It's something else to say the church's "official name" is the "Catholic Church", as opposed to it being a commonly-used phrase to refer to the church. If the church's "official name" really is "Catholic Church", it should be easy to present the church document where it was declared. Gimmetrow 20:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The two of you already brought this up and were overruled by the consensus vote against your positions. The other editors looked at these same refs and determined they support "official name" and I agree with them, all three authors do not say in those words "the Church's official name is X" but they say it in other words. We don't have to say "the dog is white" if "the white dog" also conveys the same message. NancyHeise ^talk 01:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

None of your sources speak of "the white dog" (concretely, "the officially-named Catholic Church"). Besides, even if some sources did speak of the dog as white, we could not simply declare that the dog is white, when more authoritative sources speak of it as the black dog.

As for your repeated appeals to a particular vote, please come out of that box and think for yourself. The Church does call itself the Roman Church, does it not? What value can you attribute to a vote that, by saying the Church rejects "Roman", directly contradicts what a General Council of the Church has said? Soidi (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is so simple to resolve: if the official name of the church is "Catholic Church", provide the official church document where this is formally and officially declared. Gimmetrow 06:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the question should be turned around: if Catholic Church is not the official name, please provide the church document where this is formally and officially declared. Please provide any source, even a book that says this. I have three separate sources that support official name. There are none in existence that state otherwise. Consensus of editors strongly opposed your positions on this issue and I do not understand why you do not respect that consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The question can't really be "turned around" because I'm not seeking to have "Catholic Church is not the official name" in the article; it's also a negative statement, and negative statements are notoriously difficult to prove. But if an opinion piece in the AER is an acceptable source, I suppose I could point to this opinion[66]: "If 'Roman' is not part of the name of the Church, neither is 'Catholic'". The problem here is the word "official", leading to endless disputes, when it's entirely beside the point. The key point is that even if Catholics have no problem saying the church is Catholic and Roman, quite a few Catholics do not like the term "Roman Catholic Church" because it is used by certain non-Catholics to imply something Catholics don't accept. Whitehead is a good example of this attitude. The note in the lead should say something about this rather than be bogged down trying to claim "official" status without an "official" church document. Gimmetrow 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Article text explaining the use of official states: "The Church herself, in her most authoritative and self-defining documents such as those of Vatican I and Vatican II uses the name "Catholic Church", the prefix "Roman" was rejected.[4][5][6]" What more should we be saying here? Gimmetrow, you raised this issue once before in conjunction with Soidi's (a new account) oppose at FAC. That is what caused the endless discussions and experimentations with other wordings that resulted in the consensus votes on the note and lead sentence. Over 15 editors weighed in on the discussion and votes which rejected your position. What has changed to bring this issue up yet again? At what point does consensus resolve it or are we always to bend to the lone editor who screams the loudest and longest (and with no sources to support position)? If 15 editors say the sources support the text and two disagree, what justification do those two have to overrule the 15? No Wikipedia policy supports that. NancyHeise ^talk 18:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Screaming won't suppress the new evidence. Please consider it. For instance, does or doesn't the Second Vatican Council quote the Profession of Faith of Trent and the First Vatican Council as calling the Church the Roman Church? So why not put that in to balance the claim that "Roman" was rejected? Soidi (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What new evidence have you provided? These conversations and evidence were already presented and considered by the vast number of editors who then decided to support the article text against your unsupported positions. NancyHeise ^talk 21:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The Soidi account was created in July 2007, so it's not exactly "new". Anyway, just saying "the prefix 'Roman' was rejected" isn't accurate. One meaning of 'Roman' is a problem, but another meaning is accepted - as the Vaughan quote above and the McClintock quote explains. That's what I would like the text of the note to reflect. The other problem is "official". Simply stating CC as the "official name" misrepresents the sources. Whitehead is a piece of apologetics written to church members to persuade against using "Roman Catholic Church". The given McClintock quote merely says that church authorities "dislike" the name "Roman Catholic Church", and "substitute for it the name 'Catholic' or 'Holy Catholic' Church." And the AES article is clearly a position piece and a response to an opposite position piece. Gimmetrow 21:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Come off it, Gimmetrow. The name of the church is clearly and officially the Catholic Church, that is the name officially used in all major documents such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and is the name defined in the infallible Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium. That makes it the official name, being the name used in officially in the Church's key documents and pronouncements. End of story. If you have any other official name to produce, do so. Xandar 01:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The infallible dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium cites two previous Councils that called the Church (the whole Church) "the Roman Church". That makes this an official name, being a name used officially in the Church's key documents and pronouncements. End of story. Except that it shows that "Catholic Church" is not "the" official name, but only "an" official name (in the sense of a name used officially).

By the way, if my account is new (July 2007), Nancy's seems to be newer (August 2007). :-)Soidi (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, what scholar, or book, or news or media organization cites the instance in Lumen as evidence of the Church official name? No one. My three sources cite evidence of Church official name expressly indicating in what sense the Church has used the name "Roman" in the past. Your personal interpretation of the instance in Lumen is WP:OR. Gimmetrow, the fact that Whitehead is a book that is used by the Church herself, in her Church owned English speaking media outlets to answer viewers and subscribers questions regarding the Church official name, makes Whitehead a very important source. AES is not presented as an opinion piece, it does not come under a section entitled "letters to the editor". Really we don't even need to use it, it is the third source, but I included it because it explained in more detail the same thing that Whitehead was saying. That fact alone makes it a reasonable source because it was Whitehead's explanation that is used by the Church herself to explain the matter. As for McClintock who is speaking of the term "Roman Catholic Church": "It is, however, not the official name used by the authorities of the Church—who rather dislike it, and substitute for it the name 'Catholic' or 'Holy Catholic' Church." It seems pretty clear to me that McClintock is saying the authorities of the Church use Catholic Church or Holy Catholic Church as the official name. Gimmetrow, Because so many editors looked at these sources and agreed they support article text indicates to me that you are the one misinterpreting the sources.NancyHeise ^talk 08:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course nobody cites Lumen gentium as saying something is the Church's official name! There is no such thing as "the Church's official name", as your failed attempts to answer Gimmetrow show. Lumen gentium can only be cited for official names of the Church, in the sense of names used by the Church officially. It does not indicate that any one name has been chosen as "the Church's official name".

I did not cite Lumen gentium as saying that anything is the/an official name. I did cite Lumen gentium as a source to support the statement that the Profession of Faith of Trent and the First Vatican Council call the Church the Roman Church. Is the Second Vatican Council not at least as good as any "scholar, or book, or news or media organization" as a source for what that Profession of Faith and that other Council said? Or, for that matter, can you find any "scholar, or book, or news or media organization" that contradicts the Second Vatican's citation of the Trent Profession of Faith and the First Vatican Council as calling the Church the Roman Church?

You surely are not serious when you equate EWTN with the Church. You don't, I presume, equate the US "Commonweal" periodical with the Church, or the London-based "The Tablet" (which someone said, decades ago, should change its name to "The Pill"!). The Vatican website is somewhat more closely associated with the Church than these. It does not carry any such opinion pieces by individuals like Whitehead. But it does carry documents like Lumen gentium, Humani generis, Mystici Corporis Christi, Divini illius Magistri and dozens, perhaps hundreds, more that do speak of the Church (the whole Church) as the Roman Church. While I honestly do not see why the opinion of Whitehead may be quoted but not the actual usage of Popes and Councils, I refrain from citing these because of your objection that they are "primary sources". I have cited Lumen gentium only as a (secondary) source for what is in other authoritative Church documents.

What seems "pretty clear" to you about the opinion of an 1889 writer is by no means clear to others. In any case, "pretty clear" indicates an interpretation. As Gimmetrow rightly says, if a name had been selected as the official name, this could only have been done by an official decision. No such official decision has been or can be cited. All that can be shown is that certain names are used officially, not that any one of them is "the" official name. Soidi (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

EWTN is an independently owned charitable organization that is operated under SIGNIS - overseen by the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, a branch of the Roman Curia. The president of SIGNIS has to be a member of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications [67][68]. One of EWTN's directors [69] is president of the International Group of SIGNIS.[70] That makes Whitehead more authoritative that any other source. Your personal interpretations of the meanings of original Church documents that are not making statements about the Church's official name is WP:OR. There are no books or scholars saying what you are saying about these documents. My sources are scholars who are making statements about what the Church's official name. NancyHeise ^talk 10:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Under SIGNIS"? and "SIGNIS - the Pontifical Council for Social Communications"?

From the website of SIGNIS: "SIGNIS is a non-governmental organization that includes members from 140 countries. As the "World Catholic Association for Communication", it brings together radio, television, cinema, video, media education, Internet, and new technology professionals. SIGNIS was created in November 2001 from the merger between two organizations (Unda, for radio and television; and OCIC, for cinema and audiovisual) that were both created in 1928. Its very diversified programmes cover fields such as the promotion of films or television programmes (juries at important festivals: Cannes, Berlin, Monte Carlo, Venice, Ouagadougou...), the creation of radio, video, and television studios, production and distribution of programmes, supplying specialized equipment, training professionals... SIGNIS has consultative statutes with UNESCO, Ecosoc (United Nations in Geneva and New York), the Council of Europe. SIGNIS is officially recognized by the Vatican as a Catholic organization for communication." Soidi (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What's that about my personal interpretation of original Church documents? Of "the Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him" Lumen gentium says: "It is called the Holy (catholic apostolic) Roman Church", and gives two authoritative Church documents as sources for what it says. I am not interpreting; I am only reporting. Soidi (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Um it seems you missed the part about the president of SIGNIS having to be a member of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications [71] meaning the president is part of the Roman Curia. EWTN, as a member of SIGNIS [72] is an organization overseen by the Roman Curia. EWTN's answer to the question of what is the official name of the Church presented Whitehead, not your personal interpretations which are WP:OR and are not found in any book or article discussing the Church's name, official or non. NancyHeise ^talk 10:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Augustine Loorthusamy (Malaysia), for as long as he is President of SIGNIS, is an ex officio member of the Pontifical Council; and in turn Dr Claudia Di Giovanni (Italy), a staff member of the Pontifical Council, is a member of SIGNIS. Does either body really control the other?

EWTN is one of the 150 member associations of SIGNIS, whose purposes and activities do not include overseeing the individual work of its member associations and associate associations (see its Information Kit).

So how do we reach the conclusion that EWTN is under papal supervision, and that the opinions to which it gives hospitality (and they are many) are of greater authority than statements by the Second Vatican Council?

Didn't I already tell you that I am only reporting, not interpreting, what Lumen gentium says? Soidi (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets see what Lumen gentium says:

Defining statement in Para 8 says:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

I can find no reference at all to roman catholic Church. Xandar 12:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So you haven't read it all. In particular, you haven't read comment 13* attached to "the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him". The comment, unfortunately left in Latin in the English version put on the Vatican site, is as follows: "It is called the 'holy (catholic apostolic) Roman Church' in the Profession of Faith of Trent (ibidem) and in the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith Dei Filius Denzinger 1782 (3001)". If you don't know Latin yourself and don't trust me, ask someone who does know Latin whether this corresponds to the original "Dicitur 'Sancta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecclesia', in Prof. fidei Trid., l. c. et CONC. VAT. I, Const. dogm. de fide cath. Dei Filius: DENZ. 1782 (3001)". (If you like, I can give you a weblink to the part of Denzinger referred to at the end of the comment.) Or perhaps you know one or more of the following languages: French (On dit " Sancta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecclesia ": dans Prof. fidei Trid., 1. c., et dans Conc. Vat. I, Sess. III, Const. dogm. de fide cath.: Denz. 1782 (3001)); German (Die Formel "Sancta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecclesia" findet sich in Professio fidei Tridentina, a. a. O. und in Conc. Vat. I, Sess. III., Const. dogm. de fide cath.: Denz. 1782 (3001)); Italian (È detta “Santa (cattolica apostolica) Romana Chiesa” nella Prof. fidei Trid., l.c. [nota prec.] e nel CONC. VAT. I, Cost. Dogm. sulla fede cattolica Dei Filius: Dz 1782 (3001) [Collantes 3.018]); Portuguese (Diz-se «Igreja santa (católica, apostólica) romana» em: Prof. fidei Trid., 1. c., e Cone. Vat. I, Const. dogm. de fide cath.: Denz. 1782 (3001)); and Swahili (Laitwa “Kanisa la kiroma, takatifu (katoliki, la Mitume)”, katika Prof. fidei Trid., l.c. na katika Conc. Vat. I, Sess. III, Const. dogm.Dei Filius: Denz. 1782 (3001)). Soidi (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and who said anything about "Roman Catholic" being mentioned in the document? What I have been saying here is that this document cites two authoritative sources as using "Roman Church" as their name for "the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him". Soidi (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, first of all, the expression Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church occurs in Vatican 1 documents as a descriptive term, (note the commas,) rather than formal name. It occurs twice in the documents of Vatican 1, available here. The first use (para 12 of the Profession of Faith) shows the usage intended: 12. I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all the Churches. In other words the Roman Church, the Church in the city of Rome, is the mother church of all the (Catholic) Churches. Quite a few other descriptive terms are used in the text too. However, in contrast, Catholic Church appears in the documents far more times than any other, including the first sentence of the first official document, the Profession of Faith. I, Pius, bishop of the Catholic Church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the Holy Roman Church uses.

Secondly, even if some other name had been used as an official name at some point in the past, which I doubt, the official name of the worldwide body NOW, as defined in Lumen Gentium, as used in pronouncements and titles, and as used in the Catechism, is the Catholic Church. And it is the name NOW that we put first in the article. Xandar 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Second Vatican Council says that, in the two passages it cites, the phrase "Roman Church" refers to "the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him". You are entitled to your opinion. If you find a source that supports you, you are even entitled to have your opinion included in the Wikipedia article. But you and NH have no right to exclude from the article the cited opinion of the Second Vatican Council on the meaning of these two documents.

"Far more often" does not mean "always". It does not mean that the most frequently used name is the only official (i.e. officially used) name.

Lumen gentium did not "define" any name as the name of the Church. And "Catholic Church" is not the only name now used.

Gimmetrow's point is valid: several names are used officially, but if a name had been selected as the official name, this could have been done only by an official decision. No such official decision has been or can be cited. All that can be shown is that certain names are used officially, not that any one of them is the official name. Or can you succeed where NH has failed, and produce the document by which the Church is supposed to have decided on its official name? Soidi (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've quoted the passage in LG which is quite clear. It is the defining phrase in the document which infallibly defines what the Church is and consists of. You don't get more official than that. Similarly with the Church's catechism and its principal acts and pronouncements. There is absolutely no variance in these major documents. All you have done is produced a footnote quoting back to an earlier descriptive phrase, not even a name at all, as I pointed out. As another example: the United Kingdom (official name) is also described as Great Britain and Northern Ireland (descriptive phrase) - that doesn't mean United Kingdom is not the official name, even though Great Britain is used infinitely more commonly about the UK than the highly obscure Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, is ever used to designate the CC. Your arguments seem to be basically misguided sophistry, and your principal claim now, that the Church doesn't have an official name, doesn't really make sense. Xandar 11:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You chose an amazingly bad example when you indicated "United Kingdom" as an official name. The official name is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", a name declared by law (in 1948, if I remember right), when it was changed from the previous official name of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". "United Kingdom" is used much more frequently on official occasions, but that doesn't make "United Kingdom" the official name of the state, any more than the frequent use of "Catholic Church" makes this the official name of the Church! But, of course, "Catholic Church" is used officially, as "United Kingdom" is used officially, both to an extent that seems to have made you think each was the one and only official name.

The passage of Lumen gentium that you quoted - the very passage that also says that two solemn documents (one of them being a profession of faith that every priest had to make before being ordained) call the Church the Roman Church - describes the Church as "catholic". It does not say: "The name of the Church is 'the Catholic Church'". The same document itself gives several other names to the Church, or, if you prefer, describes the Church by other names - just as it describes the Church as "catholic" in the passage you quote (the original text has "catholica", not "Catholica", although "Catholica" is used in other parts of the document). You will perhaps say that these observations of mine are Original Research. So are your observations. Soidi (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think what it all boils down to Soidi is that not one editor agrees with your personal interpretations that you have no source, even an unrespectable one to support your views. We have a source that is a overseen by the Roman Curia supporting the article text you are disputing. NancyHeise ^talk 14:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I can only suppose you wrote this before you read what I wrote below about how ridiculous is the idea that the Roman Curia oversees all that appears on the various pages of the EWTN website, just because of a tenuous relationship between EWTN and SIGNIS and because Mr Loorthusamy, who is President of SIGNIS is also a member of the Pontifical Commission for Social Communications. The actions of the members of that Commission when not involved in the Commission's work are not actions of the Roman Curia. Even if as President of SIGNIS Mr Loorthusamy were pictured as personally vetting all that appears on the Internet sites of its 150 member associations - an absolutely ridiculous idea in itself - it would be even more ridiculous to imagine that this would constitute oversight by the Roman Curia.  :-o) Soidi (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

EWTN is overseen by the Roman Curia. It is like a stamp of approval along the lines of a CPA being overseen by a State Board of Accountancy. People can trust what they hear from those sources who are part of SIGNIS because of this stamp of approval in contrast to other unofficial Catholic media outlets who are not members like the various media sources who are considered either liberal (National Catholic Reporter) or too conservative (The Wanderer). Because Whitehead is the source used by the Roman Curia approved media outlet EWTN, it can be considered to be the Church position on its own name. NancyHeise ^talk 19:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Whitehead's article is published by EWTN; EWTN is one of 150 member associations of the association SIGNIS; the President of SIGNIS is Mr Loorthusamy; Mr Loorthusamy is a member of a department of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications; the Pontifical Council for Social Communications is part of the Roman Curia. Therefore Whitehead's article is backed by EWTN, and backed by SIGNIS, and backed by Mr Loorthusamy, and backed by the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, and backed by the Roman Curia! Not just one non sequitur, but a whole series of non sequiturs! And why did you stop at that? Why didn't you continue with: Mr Loorthusamy's membership of that department is because of rules laid down by the Pope and the whole of the Curia is governed by rules laid down by the Pope; the Pope is the Vicar of Christ; Christ was sent by God the Father. Therefore Whitehead's article is backed by the Pope, and backed by Christ, and backed by God the Father! Thanks for the amusement.  :-o) Soidi (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If EWTN prints things that are considered not OK with Roman Curia, they get reprimanded or booted from SIGNIS. You cant print the things that are printed in the The Wanderer and The National Catholic Reporter and remain a member. It is this reason why we consider Whitehead's reference to be THE explanation and our number one source. I find it amusing that you persist in your arguments even though overwhelming evidence and consensus of editors oppose your ideas that you can't supply any reference to support your personal interpretations. NancyHeise ^talk 22:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"If EWTN prints ... they get reprimanded or booted". Says who?

I am sorry that I let the amusement that you give me blind me to the fact that I have been following your red herring. The point here was and is that the Church does call itself the Roman Church. The writer whom you consider to be backed by God the Father does not deny it, does he? Soidi (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, I am not going to argue this with you anymore. 15 editors have agreed on article text and references. You disagree but you provide no references to support your arguments. I can't spend any more time discussing this with you unless you produce new evidence which you have not. Cheers! NancyHeise ^talk 01:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

NH refuses to discuss. So I ask, below, Where do we go from here? Instead of discussing the reliable sources that exist for the fact that the Church does call itself the Roman Church, NH prefers her fairy tale that the members of a Pontifical Council living in Brussels and San Francisco and elsewhere attend meetings of the Council in Rome every day, when in reality they are supposed to meet, "as far as possible, once a year" - "per quanto è possibile, una volta all'anno" - and that they spend their time checking websites. She even believes her own story to the extent of editing articles on US Catholic newspapers to say they are unauthoritative because of not being members of SIGNIS, when not even L'Osservatore Romano is a member of SIGNIS! Soidi (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

refs and consensus that support lead sentence use of offical name and note

• Consensus votes on use of official in lead sentence and on the note are here

[73]and here [74]

NancyHeise ^talk 08:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Note: The text to which the link 2 above leads contains the following observation, assented to by Nancy before conclusion of the vote: "If anyone comes along and improves (the note), it should definitely not be reverted simply because it is different from what was once voted on on the talk page. Every edit deserves to be evaluated; if it is worse than what preceded it, of course change it back (or to some compound version with the merits of both versions). I think it is a bad idea, and contrary to Wikipedia's principles, to declare any part of the article to be fixed by a vote and not open to the normal process of incremental change and improvement without some special consensus-changing procedure." Soidi (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding improving the note, it would help, Soidi, if you would respect all the instances evidenced on this talk page of when other editors have not considered your changes to be "improvements". NancyHeise ^talk 10:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the the Whitehead reference that is featured in EWTN, the reason why it is so authoritative is because EWTN is an independently owned charitable organization that is operated under SIGNIS [75] - overseen by the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, a branch of the Roman Curia. The president of SIGNIS has to be a member of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications [76][77]. One of EWTN's directors [78] is president of the International Group of SIGNIS.[79] That makes Whitehead more authoritative that any other source. NancyHeise ^talk 10:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Under SIGNIS"? "SIGNIS - the Pontifical Council for Social Communications"? "Operates under papal direction"? "Whitehead more authoritative" than the Second Vatican Council?

From the website of SIGNIS: "SIGNIS is a non-governmental organization that includes members from 140 countries. As the "World Catholic Association for Communication", it brings together radio, television, cinema, video, media education, Internet, and new technology professionals. SIGNIS was created in November 2001 from the merger between two organizations (Unda, for radio and television; and OCIC, for cinema and audiovisual) that were both created in 1928. Its very diversified programmes cover fields such as the promotion of films or television programmes (juries at important festivals: Cannes, Berlin, Monte Carlo, Venice, Ouagadougou...), the creation of radio, video, and television studios, production and distribution of programmes, supplying specialized equipment, training professionals... SIGNIS has consultative statutes with UNESCO, Ecosoc (United Nations in Geneva and New York), the Council of Europe. SIGNIS is officially recognized by the Vatican as a Catholic organization for communication." Soidi (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The president of SIGNIS is required to be a member of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, the president of SIGNIS is thus part of the Roman Curia.[80][81]. EWTN, as a member of SIGNIS [82] NancyHeise ^talk 11:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Augustine Loorthusamy (Malaysia), for as long as he is President of SIGNIS, is an ex officio "member" of the Pontifical Council, and is thus a "member" of the Roman Curia. Departments of the Roman Curia have meetings of their "members" only once or twice a year to consider the most important questions, leaving the day-to-day work in the hands of the Prefect or President, assisted by the Secretary and the rest of the staff (who are not called "members"). In the case of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, almost all the 16 cardinals members and absolutely all the 8 bishops members live far away from Rome. What they do outside those meetings are not activities of the Roman Curia. The same holds for Mr Loorthusamy. Even if as President of SIGNIS he were pictured as personally vetting all that appears on the Internet sites of its 150 members associations - an absolutely ridiculous idea in itself - it would be even more ridiculous to imagine that this would constitute oversight by the Roman Curia.  :-o) Soidi (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose you have a source to back up your assertions here? Please provide link. NancyHeise ^talk 14:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe you really doubt what I said, so I will content myself with citing a blog, almost the first item I found on Google on the question of the frequency of meetings: "The Dicasteries of the Roman Curia often meet with only the members who are required to be resident in Rome present, or sometimes decisions are made only by the superior officers of the Dicastery. From time to time, or when there is a major issue to be discussed, a plenary meeting is summoned, and therefore the members of the dicastery from all over the world are required to attend. In the second half of the 20th century radical reforms effected a descentralization of the Roman Curia, whereby it began to include more and more members that are not based at the Apostolic See. Those members who are at the service of the dicastery on a fulltime/excusive basis nevertheless take part in surveys and consultations conducted by the dicasteries to which they were appointed, they receive reports and other documents from the dicastery, and they have tasks assigned to them, and they take part in plenary meetings." (I suppose I could find something more precise, if I searched for it.) As for the distinction between "members" and staff, and the proportion between the "members" resident in Rome and those who live in other countries, the Annuario Pontificio is enough. For each department, it lists first the Prefect (of a Congregation) or the President (of a Council or Commission), then the "members" (divided by categories of cardinals, bishops, etc.), then the Secretary and (if exists) Under-Secretary, then the staff, then the Consultors. Soidi (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered reliable sources per WP:RS. NancyHeise ^talk 19:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I know blogs aren't considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, but I'm amused that you chose to display less sense than I credited you with when I imagined you'd see what I quoted as a sufficient indication that I wasn't inventing a fairy tale or joking when I said that the members of the Pontifical Society for Social Communications are not in semi-permanent session in Rome. Instead it's the idea that they do work there that's laughable. Do you suppose the eight bishops members have some power of bilocation, so that the Archbishops of Luxembourg, Dublin, Yaoundé, Aparecida, San Francisco, the Bishops of Udon Thani, Sigüenza-Guadalajara, and the Auxiliary Bishop of the Maronite See of Antioch, can be at Rome as well as in the dioceses for which they have responsibility? A similar point can be made for the great majority of the sixteen cardinals members. If, according to that ridiculous idea, the members are semi-permanently working at the Pontifical Council, how come that, when they do gather in Rome, the Pope received them and makes a special speech, as in 2001, 2002 (his speech began with "From the five continents you have come once more to Rome"!), 2003, 2007? I am not at all sure that the members of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications came together even once in the period 2004-2006. However, thanks again for the amusement. Soidi (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is really difficult for me to rationalize making any changes to the article just because you, a Wikipedia editor with no references to back up your opinions, decides that the appointed cardinals are not doing their jobs. NancyHeise ^talk 22:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So Nancy decides on her personal authority what is the job of the cardinals and bishops and others who are members of departments. I suppose she would keep back the pay they get for attending. That is easily done. Their pay for attending is €0, $0. (Those who need financial assistance have their air ticket and lodging in Rome paid. I presume Mr Loorthusamy does not need to have his airfare paid when he travels from the SIGNIS headquarters in Brussels for meetings in Rome.) It is the staff members who get a salary.  :-o)

Would Nancy just possibly accept that what is written in the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus on the Roman Curia is more authoritative than her own idea of what the members of the departments of Curia should be doing? I quote it in the original language, which is Italian. Perhaps an English translation is available somewhere, but I leave it to her to find it.

Art. 11

§1. Gli affari di maggiore importanza, a seconda della natura di ciascun Dicastero, sono riservati alla Plenaria.

§2. Per le questioni aventi carattere di principio generale o per altre che il Prefetto o il Presidente abbia ritenuto necessario che siano trattate in questo modo, tutti i Membri devono essere convocati tempestivamente per le sessioni plenarie, da celebrare, per quanto è possibile, una volta all'anno. Per le sessioni ordinarie, però, è sufficiente la convocazione dei Membri che si trovano nell'Urbe.

§3 A tutte le sessioni partecipa il Segretario con diritto di voto. Soidi (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, you really spend a lot of time and effort to try to convince the editors of this page that we need to change the note. I'm sorry but you have not convinced anyone and 15 editors of the page gathered to cast a vote to show their support for the wording in the lead sentence, the note supporting use of the word "official" and the references. I can not go against that consensus especially when you fail to offer any references that support your positions. NancyHeise ^talk 01:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

NH, you really spend a lot of time and effort endlessly repeating your claim that the content of the note is fixed for all time by a vote taken before evidence of the use of "Roman Church" was first advanced, and after explicit agreement that a favourable vote on the note in the form it then had did not exclude later improvements of the note in the light of new evidence. Your claim that the then form of the note is sacred is on a par with your story of members of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications somehow coming together from all over the world every day and devoting themselves to checking certain websites. What do others say we should do about such an attitude? (See "Where do we go from here? - Roman", below.) Soidi (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Remarks by one Cardinal

I reverted an editor who added this [83]. Remarks by one Cardinal on a current event in the US do not justify adding a whole section of several paragraphs to this article which is about the worldwide Church institution, not the Church in the US. If anyone wants to add something about this reaction in the US, please try to limit it to a sentence so we don't violate WP:undue and WP:recentism. Also the sentence has to take into consideration the worldwide nature of the institution. I added a sentence regarding the Church's support for certain politicians who work against abortion (Obama supports abortion laws), and who support immigration and traditional marriage. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 15:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested, the full text of the Cardinal's words are here [84] He quotes Barack Obama's promises to sign the Freedom of Choice Act which is something that would have a profound impact on the freedom of doctors and institions to choose not to provide abortion services, something that is quite against Catholic teaching and is the sole reason why the Church opposed Obama's candidacy.NancyHeise ^talk 19:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The editor could contribute to Catholicism and American politics, although the so-called Freedom of Choice Act is already addressed briefly in that article. Gentgeen (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic and contentious

I don't like the following new para added to the Late medieval and Renaissance section; Because slavery and the slave trade were an integral part of African societies and states which supplied the Arab world with slaves for centuries before the arrival of the Europeans,[295] African slaves were later introduced to replace the Amerindians as laborers thus creating the Atlantic slave trade. This moves the article into dangerously off-topic areas, namely the complex history of slavery. It has no Church aspect, even if the paragraph has been tagged-on in response to critics of the Church on slavery. Besides, the information given seems to be over-simplistic and destined to light a large number of fuses. Slavery has been a worldwide institution in most cultures apart from medieval Europe, not just Africa. And Europe too supplied the Arab world with slaves for centuries, so the connection made with the Atlantic Slave Trade is unsound. We should remove this passage. Xandar 23:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this passage (and at least the end of the previous sentence, about labour markets) seem to have no pressing relevance to this article. TSP (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there is much too much on this, and meanwhile the brief reunion with the Orthodox churches has been dropped. Why? Too much political history and not enough church history throughout this section. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The two unions with Orthodox Churches are already discussed in the last paragraph of Early Middle Ages where the entire issue of schism is addressed at once. The slavery issue was added in response to Marskell's comments at FAC. He said our article was POV because we failed to discuss Dum Diversas and Sandy failed our FAC because she suggested we had to make the article more NPOV and suggested we listen to Marskell. I added the section in response to these comments, I did not think it too off topic because we have to consider that if people are coming to the page with ideas in their head about the RCC and slavery, we should address that issue and let them have the facts they need to know the truth as presented in university textbooks by scholars (and not from the non-scholarly anti-Catholic web sites where I appears they get a lot of their erroneous information). I am going to put the article up for peer review and I would have liked to know what peer reviewers would have said about that section. If they too reject it, then it will help us at FAC when some reviewer like Marskell comes along and says we are POV for not including it - we can point to the peer review where it was rejected then ( or not). Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar. This article should not delve deeply into the history of slavery. One of the comments in the last FAC was that too much of the article seemed like a statement and then several sentences justifying the actions of the RCC or refuting the statement conclusion. A whole paragraph on the rise of the slave trade independent of the church definitely falls into that category and can tip the balance of that section away from NPOV. Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments very much and am inclined to eliminate the mentions of slavery but I want to know what peer reviewers have to say too especially since Sandy placed such emphasis on Marskell's comments about NPOV and Dum Diversas was one of those. Thanks for your comments Karanacs, I sure hope no one feels as if I am waving away your concerns, I did not include the mention of Dum Diversas in the first place because I felt the same way you do but I have to consider everyone's POV so I included mention of it after we failed FAC. Maybe we will get some better wording ideas from peer reviewers and maybe we will find consensus, that is what we really want here. Thanks to everyone for your comments that are well taken and will be included in final consideration. NancyHeise ^talk 18:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK forget what I just said, I have reworded the paragraph and eliminated mention of atlantic slave trade which is off topic. I kept mention of Dum Diversas so I hope my rewording makes everyone happy now - please see the paragraph again and let me know what you think. Thanks for everyone's help here. NancyHeise ^talk 18:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's better without the passage, which seemed a bit odd and defensive on its own. If people have some specific information on the Church and slavery that they object to the omission of, I think that is the time to see what they have, and whether that is representative, factual, balanced and notable. I don't actually think that Dum Diversas had that much influence on the Slave Trade, being more a tit-for-tat document authorizing Portuguese Christians to take Muslim slaves as Muslims had always taken Christian slaves on raids. IMO it's something a few modern historians have "discovered" and tried to make something out of. After all if Dum Diversas had so great an effect, how come all the subsequent anti-slavery Papal Bulls such as Sublimus Dei had none? I think the current wording probably gives too much weight to Dum Diversas, but does set it properly in context. Xandar 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Where's a 'controversies' section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.55.243 (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Church music

Hello I left the following message below atWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christian_music#Church_music.2FSacred_music, this is for your information.

---

Hello.

1. I was going to do some work in this area then realised there was a potential minefield. I created the category [[Category:Sacred music composers]] and applied it to a few composers, then discovered there were other categories such as 'Christian composers' and so on. I don't think the latter is quite right, since it implies the composer was a Christian, and would therefore include composers of secular music who happened to profess christianity, as well as potentially excluding non-believers who had written Christian or sacred music. There are also many composers (S.S. Wesley e.g.) who are not covered at all.
2. There is amazingly no article on Church music itself, which redirects to Christian music, and which is a mess. Any decent article would need to cover the history of Church music as such, but I don't see one. I am going to make a start, any help would be appreciated.

The Land Surveyor (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have made a completely new start at Church music. Help appreciated. The Land Surveyor (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think that's great, it looks really terrific. You need to add references to your work, I have some reference templates that I often use at the top of my talk page if you need to borrow them. NancyHeise ^talk 16:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added some references (others will be quite hard to find). By all means add things that are necessary (gospel music and modern church music needs to go in, for example). The Land Surveyor (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Very good start. But there's a huge amount to do there if hymns are to be included. There's the calvinist-zwinglian hatred of hymns and exclusive psalmody. Catholic and Lutheran hymns. Methodism, Moody-Sankey, Salvation Army, Victorian hymns, Modern choruses, Taize, not to mention Greek and Russian Orthodox music, Caribbean, African and Latin American contributions. Tiring just thinking about it. Xandar 00:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, any help appreciated. The Land Surveyor (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not be a very good person to contribute content but I could review it for you. Let me know if you ever put it up for peer review. NancyHeise ^talk 16:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"catholic" vs. "Catholic" again

Sorry that I've been away from Wikipedia for a couple of weeks.

First of all, let me emphasize that I am not wrapped up in the "name of the church" question. My concern is completely around whether or not a reader who is unfamiliar with the "catholic" vs. "Catholic" distinction is being given at least an inkling that such a distinction even exists. As it stands now, it would take an astute reader some effort to find and understand that this distinction exists and what it is.

So... I understand that there are articles on catholic and Catholicism. I do question why there are two articles instead of one but let's leave that question for another day.

My concern here is that neither the lead nor "Note 1" link to either the catholic or Catholicism articles directly. You can kind of get there by following One holy catholic and apostolic church which redirects to Four Marks of the Church and finally one can find a link in that article to Catholicism but that is quite a lot of link-following required to understand the basic concept.

If this article is about the "Catholic Church" or the "Roman Catholic Church", does it not behoove us to link to the Catholicism article directly in the first few sentences of the lead?

What I am looking for is some signal to the reader that "catholic" and "Catholic" have different meanings from each other and that the meanings change depending on whether you are Roman Catholic, Episcopalian or Protestant. I am NOT looking for a full explication of the distinction in this article. What I would hope for is a simple statement that says something like "The RCC considers itself to be catholic. Other churches also lay claim to being catholic."

The reader can then jump to the catholic article to understand what this means.

--Richard (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see the use of a link to the Catholic article. It is just difficult to fit it in without disrupting a tightly written lead. Your suggested wording I don't much like in its present form since it would read (as per our agreed usage) "The Catholic Church considers itself to be catholic. Other churches also lay claim to being catholic." Perhaps just a "See also Catholicism" line might be better. A possible wording for somewhere in the first paragraph might be: "Although some other faith groups lay claim to the quality of Catholicism.... What do others think? Xandar 02:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Our concern is not what other faiths think of the concept of Katholicism, but our concern is of the Catholic Church, which it considers itself to be Katholic. Get me? Gabr-el 02:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't "get you" because I have always objected to the idea that an article about X should only describe X in terms of X's perspective. At the risk of using inflammatory examples, imagine if the same assertion were to be made about the articles describing Nazism, the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nation. I object to this sort of approach being used for articles about the Mormon church or the Jehovah's Witnesses. And I object to it being used for this article as well. It violates WP:NPOV. Now, I don't ask for an exposition of all negative criticisms of the Catholic Church here in this article. That's what the Criticism of the Catholic Church article is for. I am the creator of that article although a number of other editors have contributed and changed that article since I created it.

However, when it comes to defining what the Catholic Church is and is not, I think it is important that this central "bone of contention" be at least mentioned and linked to. I cannot imagine that we can assert that this church calls itself the "Catholic Church" without explaining what "Catholic" and "catholic" mean somewhere in the lead.

--Richard (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a link to Catholicism (probably the better of the two "catholic" articles) to Note 1. That should help. Xandar 15:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd prefer that the link appear in the lead rather than in the note but I appreciate the effort and I won't push the issue further at this time. Thanx. --Richard (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

To avoid fractured conversation, I request that all future conversation on name take place below at section entitled "name". I will not be responding to comments on name in these sections above and I ask others to refrain from doing so if they want their comments read and considered by me Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Where do we go from here? - Roman

NH has said she refuses to discuss further. She says that 15 editors agreed on the text of the note, but she cannot deny that, when they voted on it, it was explicitly agreed that later modifications of the note were not excluded. This she is now refusing to admit. She refuses to admit modifications backed up with reliable sources. It is a verifiable fact that, according to sources that include, but are not limited to, a General Council of the Church, the Church calls itself Roman. Since NH refuses to discuss the matter and reverts attempts to insert in the article what these sources say, what can be done? Soidi (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC) To avoid fractured conversation, I request that all future conversation on name take place below at section entitled "name". I will not be responding to comments on name in these sections above and I ask others to refrain from doing so if they want their comments read and considered by me Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Where do we go from here? - official

NH makes no attempt to provide a source that shows that the Church has declared some particular name to be its official name. As Gimmetrow has pointed out, several names are used officially, but if a name had been selected as the official name, this could have been done only by an official decision. No such official decision has been or can be cited. All that can be shown is that certain names are used officially, not that any one of them is the official name. There is nothing corresponding to the specific law by which the name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" was adopted for that state. Soidi (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Soidi, it's time for you to find something else to do with your life than keep obsessing on this issue. It is quite clear and has been proved many times from many different sources what name the Church uses officially and has defined formally. You won't accept that. And insist, astonishingly, that the Church is one organisation that has no actual proper official name. There isn't a lot more that can be done after three pages of argument and discussion. Why not try doing some constructive work on other articles? Xandar 14:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar's idea that the Church has officially adopted a single official name is as well founded as his idea of what is the official name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And as well founded as his claim that a phrase in Lumen gentium that does not contain the word "name" and that uses "called" only in relation to "Roman Church" is a declaration of something other than "Roman Church" as the Church's official name! As long as Xandar's claim that the Church "has defined formally" some particular name remains undocumented, Gimmetrow's challenge remains unanswered. Soidi (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

To avoid fractured conversation, I request that all future conversation on name take place below at section entitled "name". I will not be responding to comments on name in these sections above and I ask others to refrain from doing so if they want their comments read and considered by me Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Soidi's persistent denial of consensus regarding first sentence and note 1

Over 15 editors considered Soidi's arguments and rejected them.[85],[86] Gimmetrow is the only editor who agreed with him on the issue of "official", he did not on agree with him on "Roman". New evidence has also revealed that our top source supporting article text, Whithead, is also used by the one source that is overseen by the Roman Curia, Eternal Word Television Network which is a member of SIGNIS.[87] [88] [89] This Roman Curia approved source, EWTN, and the Catholic Newspaper Our Sunday Visitor, used Whitehead to present worldwide viewers with the answer to the question of what is the Church's official name.[90] Two other sources are cited in the article to support Whitehead's assertions[91] Soidi provides no sources to support his views but relies on his own personal interpretations of orginal documents WP:OR that are nowhere discussed by any author as being evidence of the Church's official name. In order to comply with Soidi's suggestions, we would have to violate WP:Consensus, WP:RS, and WP:OR. NancyHeise ^talk 16:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

SIGNIS does not say that it oversees or guarantees what appears on its member associations and associate members' websites. Still less does the Roman Curia oversee or guarantee it (a ridiculous idea). NH provides no source to support her view but relies on her own personal interpretations of certain writings, none of which state that the Church has adopted a single official name. Soidi does not deny that there was a consensus, a consensus that explicitly stated that the note remained "open to the normal process of incremental change and improvement without some special consensus-changing procedure". He points out that new evidence has been produced (which NH refuses to discuss), sources that say:

1. The name "Roman" has been adopted by the Church herself and recognized by the world at large as the proper appellation.

2. The Church is called the Roman Church in the Profession of Faith of Trent and in the First Vatican Council's Dei Filius constitution

3. Pius XII used the term "Roman" Catholic Church

4. The profession of faith prescribed by Pope Innocent III in 1208 asserts that it is a divinely revealed truth that the one true ecclesia is the Roman Catholic Church (if you have difficulty in believing what this reliable source says, go to the original document to which he is referring: the text is given in Denzinger 423).

These are all statements by the sources, not my interpretations of the sources. NH, why don't you admit that the sources that make these statements exist, that (unlike your sources, which you have to interpret to make them say what you want them to say) they explicitly make these statements, and that therefore the statements they make cannot be excluded from Wikipedia, as if no view other than your POV were admissible? Soidi (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as your propositions go:

1. Not true at all.

2. No. As previously shown, "Roman" is used with other adjectives in descriptive phrases, such as One, Holy, Apostolic and Roman. Catholic Church is the standard form used.

3. Not as the standard official name of the Church in major documents and pronouncements

4. The profession of faith of 1208 on the link is from the Archbishop of Terraco, not Pope Innocent III, so the reference is misinterpreted. In any event the wording used is the descriptive phrase Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic to which the word Church has been added in brackets by the later editor. It is not the name. The use of Roman Church in these documents is defined by the document from the Lateran Council of 1215 which states (Chap 5): "we sanction that after the Roman Church, which by the ordering of the Lord before all others holds the first place of ordinary power as the mother and teacher of all the faithful of Christ, the (Church of) Constantinople holds the first, Alexandria the second, Antioch the third, and Jerusalem the fourth place." In other words, this name Roman Church refers to the Church of the City of Rome, not the Catholic Church as a whole.

You are indeed misunderstanding and misinterpreting your sources. Xandar 00:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

These are not my propositions, as Xandar calls them. They are statements by reliable sources that say the Church is self-denominated as Roman. Xandar may deny what they say, but he cannot deny that they say it. What reliable sources say cannot be excluded from a Wikipedia article merely on the grounds that some editor dislikes it.

(By the way, and just for a laugh, the 1208 letter to the Archbishop of Terraco, which Xandar claims was written by the Archbishop himself (!), says that no one is saved outside the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church: if that "refers to the Church of the City of Rome and not the Catholic Church as a whole", as Xandar says, perhaps we should all pack our bags immediately and head for Rome, if we wish to be saved! :-o)) Soidi (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The authorship of the letter of 1208 is not set out clearly in the source you cite, and whether it was sent from or to the Archbishop of Terraco eight centuries ago is hardly a matter of importance. The fact is that it does not state what you claim it states. You seem to find it incredibly hard to grasp the distinction between a descriptive phrase and a name. The phrase in the letter is clearly a descriptive phrase that appears in Vatican documents in many forms, listing some of the attributes of the Catholic Church, ie, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic, Roman, etc. This is not a name as you keep claiming. The attributes are listed in any combination and in virtually any order. In the letter you cite, as I stated above, the word "Church" that you claim is there, is not. It has been ADDED in brackets by a later editor. Even if the word had been there, it still doesn't make it a name - only a description, as in "my secure, trustworthy and London-based, bank".

2. My other comment referred to the phrase The Roman Church in the ancient letters you cited, a phrase which it is quite clear refers to the Church of the City of Rome, which is referred to since it is the Pontifical seat, the source of Apostolic teaching authority. You don't have to go to Rome to be saved. It is a reference to Rome's infallible teaching authority. This is made clear in para 466 of the document you cite which says clearly " Also this same holy Roman Church holds the highest and complete primacy and spiritual power over the universal Catholic Church which she truly and humbly recognizes herself to have received with fullness of power from the Lord Himself in Blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles whose successor is the Roman Pontiff... And to her anyone burdened with affairs pertaining to the ecclesiastical world can appeal; and in all cases looking forward to an ecclesiastical examination, recourse can be had to her judgment, and all churches are subject to her; their prelates give obedience and reverence to her. In her, moreover, such a plentitude of power rests that she receives the other churches to a share of her solicitude, of which many patriarchal churches the same Roman Church has honored in a special way by different privileges-its own prerogative always being observed and preserved both in general Councils and in other places."

The name self-denominated by the Church is the Catholic Church. Xandar 12:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Let us end discussion of the joke, which was only by the way and in brackets. Let us get back to what the source cited says and leave aside your red-herring talk about whether the source to which that source referred was written by someone other than the Pope, whether by "outside the Church" it meant, as you first said, "outside the City of Rome" or, as you now say, "outside acceptance of the teaching of Rome", i.e. outside the Catholic Church, and so on. The fourth source cited for the Wikipedia article is not that one: it is the secondary, scholarly source that says the profession of faith prescribed by Pope Innocent III in 1208 asserts that it is a divinely revealed truth that the one true ecclesia is the Roman Catholic Church. That is what it says. You disagree with what it says. But that is what it says. I repeat, there are sources that state (without need of interpretation):

1. The name "Roman" has been adopted by the Church herself and recognized by the world at large as the proper appellation.

2. The Church is called the Roman Church in the Profession of Faith of Trent and in the First Vatican Council's Dei Filius constitution.

3. Pius XII used the term "Roman" Catholic Church.

4. The profession of faith prescribed by Pope Innocent III in 1208 asserts that it is a divinely revealed truth that the one true ecclesia is the Roman Catholic Church.

What these solid sources say must be reported, even if your POV is different. Soidi (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Because no other source claims what Soidi claims here, these statements are considered Original Research and are disallowed on Wikipedia per WP:OR. Soidi's comments should probably be ignored at this point since over 15 editors have considered them over and over again but no one agrees with him. Let's just let him fill the talk page with his comments to his heart's content, that seems to be his sole aim here since it is clear that he has not and will not convince anyone.NancyHeise ^talk 14:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to NH, what she has written here is absolute nonsense. WP:OR in a nutshell is: "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." The statement that the Church refers to itself as "Roman" is verifiable, being attributable to reliable published secondary sources, of which I have given four or five here. The statements these sources make are explicit, unlike the interpretations that NH tries to drag out of her sources. So the statement that the Church refers to itself as "Roman" cannot be excluded on the ground that the sources cited do not really support the statement. As for the other possible grounds for excluding them, nobody has shown that these concordant sources cannot be classified as reliable; nor has anyone shown that the statement that the Church refers to itself as "Roman" is irrelevant to an article on the Roman Catholic Church. NH doesn't even try to argue against the relevance or exactness of the statement or against the reliability of the cited sources. She seems to think that if she keeps refusing to discuss the evidence, the evidence will vanish, when it is precisely her refusal to discuss the evidence that is the problem. Would she please either discuss the evidence or else admit to the article the statement that, according to certain sources, the Church refers to itself as "Roman". Better the more encyclopedic: The term "Roman" is also commonly applied to the Catholic Church and is used by the Church itself. Soidi (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am still confused with this whole line of thinking. The issue of whether or not use of Roman is acceptable has already been handled; please refer to the title of the article. It is apparent that it is one of the terms used to refer to the Church. Given a specific context, it is apparent that it is used by the Church to refer to herself. However, it is also apparent that the term it uses is Catholic Church, which is apparent by the title of the Catechism, The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Let's move on. --^StormRider 18:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a strange idea that the title chosen for a single book should be considered enough to indicate that one name and one name only is "the term". It would follow logically that "Catholic Church" became "the term" only a few years ago, in 1992 or 1997!! By the way the name of the preceding official catechism was "Catechismus Romanus"! Yes, the Church refers to herself as the Catholic Church. But also, as has been shown, as the Roman Church, and other names.

Yes, let us move on. Let us put into the article the well-documented fact that the term "Roman" is also commonly applied to the Catholic Church and is used by the Church itself. Will NH at last permit it, or will she again revert anything I put in, no matter how well sourced it is? Soidi (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

So here we are again. The dispute about "Roman" arises because some non-Catholics want to use the term in a sense that many Catholics object to. Does anyone disagree with that? If not, wouldn't it be a lot easier to include a note which actually explains this, to educate readers, rather than defend the very debatable proposition that "Catholic Church" is the "official name" for the church? For Xander, since you seem to know the difference between a "name" and a "description" - did it ever occur to you that "Catholic Church" might be descriptive? It appears 6 times in Lumen Gentium, narrowly beating out Church of Christ (5) and Church of God (4), but there's another name/description for the church which appears a lot more often. Gimmetrow 22:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"Here we are again", because Soidi will not accept any position but his own, and obsessively trolls this issue. The changes Soidi made go beyond his sources as well as making the first sentence impossibly long. I have removed the inaccurate bit about Roman being official, and the out-of-date "source" for that - from an American Ecclesiology review of 1907. Apart from the unreliability, we are talking of the Church NOW. I have leftv the other half of his addition in for the moment - although it seems to me to be repeating what is already obvious from the title. Catechismus Romanus refers to the catechism produced in Rome. Just as the Baltimore Catechism describes the Catechism produced in Baltimore. It doesn't mean the Church is called the Baltimore Catholic Church! Gimmetrow. The official name of the Church is the one it self-defines - as the Catholic Church has clearly done in LG and elsewhere. WP policy is clear about this too, no matter if other groups object to the usage. And it is quite easy to determine a name from a descriptive phrase. A name is consistent and is used in the titles and defining sections of major documents, offices and pronouncements. A descriptive phrase like "Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic," or any other combination of those and other words is not. Or are you really trying to argue one of those combinations, or "Church of Christ" is the official name of the Church? Xandar 22:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but if "Catholic Church" is a name and not a description, it's odd that that "official name" appears only slightly more than two other phrases you seem to rule out in the same document, and it appears far less often than another phrase in the same document. Other churches have some sort of document which clearly states their official name(s). This church doesn't seem to have that. It has a few names/titles/descriptions it uses in official documents, some used more than others, but none of them clearly and unambiguously set forth as an official name. If you say there is or are such names, just point me to the church document which officially states this. LG apparently isn't it. Gimmetrow 23:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow's point is valid and has not really been challenged by anyone. The idea that the choice, a few years ago, of the name "Catechism of the Catholic Church" made "Catholic Church" the official name is quite ridiculous. There is no statement in Lumen gentium about an official name to be used.

Xandar is only making own-authority claims about supposed self-declarations by the Church about its name. The only part of Lumen gentium in which it could be argued that the Church has declared its name is in the footnote where it says the Church is "called" (dicitur) the Holy Roman Church; Avery Dulles wrote that the phrase "governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him", added to "catholic Church" at that point of the document, is a circumlocution for the word "Roman" and that in addition the Council preserved the straightforward word "Roman" in the footnote. Soidi (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) Nancy, I have tried my level best in talking with two highly knowledgeable Catholic theologians and neither was able to produce a definitive declaration by the Catholic Church of its official name. In my mind it is without doubt that the name preferred by Catholics is the simple "Catholic Church" and I believe that this name should be the focus of reference for this article. However, I also believe that some information in the body of the article or in a note, should address the various names throughout history the Church has used to refer to herself. Of course, one of those names is Roman Catholic Church, but there are several others. Why does this ambiguity exist? Frankly, I think it has more to do with the Church being at least 1600 years old and Catholics would definitively say 2000 years old. During this very long period, for long stretches of time, it was the only legitimate, functioning Christian church and there was no need for a clarification of an official name...thus no declarative statement similar to other more contemporary churches. This position is but the ramblings of a casual conversation and other scholars may have a more definitive reason. Thoughts? --^StormRider 09:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In other words, "Catholic Church" is the "preferred" name, not an alleged "official" name. I agree with Storm Rider about this and about the way he explains why, unlike groups that sprang up later, the Catholic Church has felt no need to choose an official name, but has continued to refer to itself by the various names (plural) that it was using for itself before the appearance of groups that distinguished themselves from it. Choosing an official name coincides, perhaps always, with a change of identity, as with the adoption of the official name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" in 1801, and its change to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in 1927, or the move in 1946 from "Kingdom of Italy" to "Italian Republic". The Catholic Church has never thought that a change in identity required it to select some official name. Soidi (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is just nonsense. What are the "various names" the Catholic Church refers to itself as? I asked Gimmetrow what he thought was the official name of the Church if not Catholic Church - no answer. That reveals a lot. The Catechism, Lumen gentium and other major documents and pronouncements quite clearly state what the name of the Church is. Yes, other descriptive terms have been used Just as the Anglican Church is described as Church of England Anglican, Episcopal, Episcopalian, Protestant Episcopal, Reformed Apostolic, etc. The Catholic Church has since the days of the early fathers referered to itself as the Catholic Church, and has continued to do so, along with most of the world's population. "Roman Catholic" appeared in the 17th century in protestant lands. The attempt to state that the Catholic Church is not the name of the institution seems to me to be based on strong POV pushing by people who don't like the fact that this is the proper name of the Church is Catholic Church, because, for POV reasons, they wish to deny the Church that title. As far as "official" is concerned, LG and the Catechism are as official as it gets. And even when, for purposes of compromise, some of us agreed to look for another word that provided the necessary information -such as "proper name" etc. All of these suggestions were opposed for various reasons. Sorry. The name of the Church, officially and properly is the Catholic Church. Live with it. Xandar 12:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Church has since the days of the early Fathers referred to itself as the catholic Church - and by other names. If antiquity is what counts, the oldest name that the Church uses is "Church of God". It used that name already in the New Testament: see, for instance, Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 10:32, 1 Corinthians 11:22, 1 Corinthians 15:9, Galatians 1:13, 1 Timothy 3:15. It still uses that name, as, for instance in Lumen gentium (which is "as official as it gets"). Asking Gimmetrow to give what he thought was the official name, when he believes, as does Storm Rider, that there isn't any one official name, was just plain silly. Soidi (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I stated above that I didn't think the church has an "official name" in the sense that The Episcopal Church, for instance, has an official name. If I were to read LG for an indication of the most preferred name, I would probably think it to be simply "Ecclesia" or "the Church", which is heavily used in that document. I may be wrong, but isn't Lumen Gentium even called Schema de Ecclesia, not Schema de Ecclesia Catholica? Gimmetrow 17:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro that Soidi has put up looks very out of place. What is the purpose of putting the term Roman twice, when its already bolded in the the very first part of the intro? It is never just called Roman as the bolded word alone suggests, but rather Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church. If Soidi has some sort of point to make why doesnt he just put a note tag after the initial "Roman Catholic Church" phrase in the intro instead, surely this would make more sense without it looking as odd and out of place as it does? Kilfeno (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Kilfenora, the Church is called the Roman Church, as the cited sources, in particular Lumen gentium, show. Until a few decades ago, every priest had to make, before ordination, the Tridentine Profession of Faith, in which the Church was called the Roman Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. Soidi (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, please understand that I think the proper name of the church is the Catholic Church. She first among all churches that claim to be catholic. However, that is only my opinion. I have spent a number of hours attempting to find a document that declares the official name of the church, but that search was in vain. I found nothing. I wrote to a learned Catholic fellow, a retired Dean of Religion, and the most he came up with was the Catechism and the Nicene Creed. Honestly, this lack of references for a declaration of an official name is not disconcerting to me. In the mind of the Church there has never been a question about its identity; it simply is the Catholic Church upon which sits the chair of Peter. If you or anyone else has misinterpreted anything I have said, let me be clear, Catholic Church is the name of the Church. However, during her history and at various times she has also chosen to call herself Roman Catholic Church, One Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church, etc. I think it would be helpful to have a note or a small mention of the different names the Church uses to describe herself. If it is already present, then there is nothing to do. If it is not present, it may be worth a mention. Does this help?--^StormRider 20:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all explained in the link to Whitehead which is the source used by EWTN, a network approved and overseen by the Roman Curia, to explain the Church's official name.[92] NancyHeise ^talk 23:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

EWTN is not overseen by the Roman Curia, which does not endorse everything that appears on the EWTN website. Soidi (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

More WP:OR on your part Soidi, maybe if you provide links to substantiate your claims we could carry on a more effective conversation. No on on Wikipedia can not be expected to consider arguments that have no links to reliable sources to support arguments such as yours. NancyHeise ^talk 13:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To avoid fractured conversation, I request that all future conversation on name take place below at section entitled "name". I will not be responding to comments on name in these sections above and I ask others to refrain from doing so if they want their comments read and considered by me Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Xandar on "Roman"

Xandar deleted on the grounds of its being "out of date" a statement in the 1903 American Ecclesiastical Review. I will agree to its deletion when Xandar also deletes the opposing statement taken from the American Ecclesiastical Review of the same year, and the even earlier 1889 statement by McClintock! For the present, I have restored the statement he deleted. Soidi (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar's deletion of your edits. The American Ecclesiastical Review we have kept in the article contains facts that are collaborated by Whitehead. Whitehead is the source used by EWTN, a network approved and overseen by the Roman Curia, to explain the Church's official name.[93] NancyHeise ^talk 23:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well then if you agree with Xandar's deletion of these edits on the grounds of out-of-date-ness, please be logical and delete the other 1903 and the 1889 source! Soidi (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Time to work towards compromise and collaboration?

I've been reading just the last few discussions on "Roman Catholic Church" vs. "Catholic Church". I confess that I haven't had the patience and fortitude to wade through the entire history of the discussion on this issue nor am I knowledgeable enough to have a defensible opinion on which of the alternatives is or is not the official name of the church. I have read Note 1 and footnotes 3,4,5 so I think I have a rough grasp of the issues. Thus, what follows is an attempt to forge a compromise based on the representations of Soidi, Gimmetrow, Xandar and others.

First off, a consensus of 15 to 1 does seem overwhelming although we should have the humility to realize that this is just the opinion of 15 people and that is still a small number. Consensus can change as more people are polled and so we should not assume that a consensus once formed represents an immutable decision that is "cast in stone" as it were. However, someone challenging such an overwhelming consensus should be humble in doing so.

Second, if there is reasonable doubt about a fact, WP:NPOV requires that we represent all POVs without giving undue weight to any one POV. So I ask: Is it really crystal clear that "the Catholic Church" is the official name of the church or are we relying on indirect indications of the official name in official documents such as Lumen Gentium? I.E. are we engaging in OR when we assert that the official name of the church is "the Catholic Church" when there is no document that states this as an incontrovertible fact? On the flip side, is there any clear evidence that there is dispute about the name of the church? Perhaps the church prefers not to care about having an official name (per StormRider).

Our focus should be less on "getting it right" and more on educating the reader as to what the issues are and letting him/her form their own opinion. (Yes, even if he/she winds up differing from you and getting it "wrong". Plenty of people get things "wrong". If we present all sides of an issue in an NPOV way, some people will still get it "wrong". It's the nature of the human condition.)

I would prefer to spend less effort trying to determine whether the Church has an official name and what it might be. I would prefer to spend our time helping the reader understand the issue and the various opinions regarding it. I know you can get there as I did by following the footnotes but I think some of the points in Whitehead and the Ecclesiastical Review need to be brought into Note 1 or into a new note, "Note 1.5" if you will. Moreover, many of the arguments on these Talk Pages should be put into my proposed "Note 1.5" (which would, of course, be numbered "Note 2"; I'm just trying to avoid confusion between my proposed note and the existing "Note 2").

The contents of my proposed Note 1.5 would assert:

1. It appears that there is no definitive, "official" name of the church. The fact seems to be that there is no document where the Catholic Church establishes an official name for itself. Thus, the only evidence of what the name of the church is the way the Church refers to itself in official documents.
2. The Catholic Church uses a number of locutions to refer to itself in official documents but the preferred form appears to be "the Catholic Church"
3. It seems clear that the Catholic Church has no problem characterizing itself as "Roman" but "Roman Catholic Church" does not seem to be a preferred name and certainly not the official name. (I'm not 100% sure of this. Perhaps the church draws a distinction between the Roman part of the Catholic Church and the non-Latin rite parts. Those more knowledgeable than I will have to weigh in on what exactly "Roman" means when the Catholic Church uses it.)
4. Some outside the Church have preferred to characterize the church as the "Roman Catholic Church", usually for sectarian reasons. However, in opposition to these motives, many within the church have preferred the appellation "the Catholic Church" and resisted the use of the apellation "Roman Catholic Church". We should explain the reasons that various parties have for favoring or opposing this locution e.g. Anglicans favored it because of ... Catholics opposed because of ....
5. Let us clearly identify facts as facts and opinions as opinions. Some Roman Catholics prefer to use the appellation "Roman Catholic Church" to signal their loyalty to Rome. Whitehead thinks this is wrong-headed but that's his opinion; the fact is some Roman Catholics prefer RCC. Whitehead's opinion is an opinion, a learned opinion perhaps but an opinion nonetheless. The decision of some Roman Catholics is based on their opinion; wrong-headed perhaps but their opinion nonetheless. What is factual is that some Roman Catholics reject the locution "Roman Catholic Church" and others prefer it. It may be the case that the more learned and official opinions tend towards rejecting it and the more common lay opinions prefer it. This last conjecture is speculation on my part and we would need to find a reliable source that says it before inserting it. The bottom line is: we should present the facts and the opinions but we must make clear what is fact and what is opinion.
6. One more point: It might be useful to provide historical context to indicate that preferred usage has changed over time. It should be clear that the appellation "Roman" evolves over time as does the appellation "Catholic". When did the church start to call itself "Catholic"? When did it start to use "Roman"? If the Tridentine Profession of Faith uses the locution "Roman Church", what was the locution in its predecessor? Rather than choosing antiquity as authoritative or post-Vatican II as authoritative, let us present to the reader a story of how the name and attitudes around the name have changed over time.

I hope this perspective helps. It may result in a longish "Note 1.5" but I think it is better to summarize our lengthy Talk Page discussions for the reader and help him/her understand the issues than to try and fight over precise wording which the reader would then have to parse carefully and decode in order to even get a hint of the bubbling brew that lies under the surface.

--Richard (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Good proposal. Soidi (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this is pretty much what I've been trying to say. I think Whitehead, Vaughan and McClintock represent a significant view on the propriety of using "Roman Catholic Church", but we should not gloss over other uses, such as the encyclical Humani Generis which says "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing." Gimmetrow 18:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No. The proposed "note" suggests vagueness where none exists. The Church self-identifies as the Catholic Church, and declares its name in the Catechism and the Constitution Lumen Gentium adopted at Vatican II: "This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,"That is official. No "other official names" are used in Vatican documents. The note is also excessively anglo-centric and US centric in claiming the use of Roman Catholic by Catholics. The whole "official" argument is a red-herring anyway, since alternative words were proposed by myself and others to make clear that Catholic Church is the proper name of the Church. All were rejected, and official was used as a non value-based compromise. Xandar 21:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How come you omitted the part where Lumen gentium says that the Church "is called" the Roman Church? The rest of your quotation doesn't say anything about the name of the Church but only describes it as "catholic" as "governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him" (a circumlocution for "Roman") etc. Soidi (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

EWTN is approved by and overseen by the Roman Curia. EWTN used Whitehead to explain to its worldwide viewers the Church's official name. [94] NancyHeise ^talk 23:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

EWTN is not overseen by the Roman Curia, which does not endorse everything that appears on the EWTN website. Soidi (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... it appears that my suggested compromise on point #1 of the proposed "Note 1.5" is not acceptable to Xandar and Nancy Heise. Let's put that aside for the moment. Is there value in considering points 2-6 in my proposal? For the most part, I was trying to capture what I perceived as the key points in what Whitehead wrote. I think summarizing Whitehead's argument in Note 1 or "Note 1.5" would be valuable. I also think it worthwhile to explain why there some Anglo-U.S. parties who push the locution "Roman Catholic Church" and why some Catholics (presumably Anglo-U.S.) buy into the use of this locution. I really don't have an agenda to push regarding the "official name". I just want to accurately describe how different parties view this question. Consider this a way to educate Anglo-U.S. readers about why their perspective is uniquely Anglo-U.S. and not a global perspective. --Richard (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Richard, thank you for your comments. Because article size is a consideration, we try not to stray into areas that are considered off-topic or immaterial like Anglo- use of "Roman Catholic". The Whitehead source is linked in article text explaining the name and Anglo use of Roman Catholic is explained in this link - see paragraph 7 [95]. The source has all the information on the name and we would be making our article violate size and scope limitations by recreating what is already explained in this Roman Curia overseen and approved source. NancyHeise ^talk 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Note 10

At a strategic level, I stand by my proposal in the section "Time for compromise and collaboration" above. On a tactical level, I wish to draw attention to Footote 10 and ask "What is the purpose of having this note?".

The footnote reads:

"Each of these documents presents three distinct statements as truths actually revealed by God ... They assert that:... It is a divinely revealed truth that this one true ecclesia is the Roman Catholic Church, the social unit properly termed 'the universal Church of the faithful'" (Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation in the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See. Westminster, MA: Newman Press, 1958, chapter I).

It appears that the editor who inserted the footnote is trying to point out the usage of "Roman Catholic Church" in the statement "(the) one true ecclesia is the Roman Catholic Church" in the context of the "Catholic Church" vs. "Roman Catholic Church" dispute. However, I point out that the title of the document uses "The Catholic Church" and the phrase "the Catholic Church" is used a number of times in the document. Thus, the document does not shed light on the issue one way or the other except to suggest that Msgr. Fenton does not clearly eschew the use of "Roman Catholic Church" although he does seem to prefer "Catholic Church". In any event, Fenton's opinion is that of a Monsignor; he does not seem to be an "official" source regarding the official name of the Church and he does not seem to be writing about the name of the church as he is about other, more weighty theological issues.

I propose removing this footnote as it does not help anybody's argument.

--Richard (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right. The point of the note was quite obscure. It was meant to be a secondary source that states that the phrase "Roman Catholic Apostolic Church" was used by a Pope as far back as 1208. Quoting Innocent III's profession of faith directly would have come up against objections of Original Research. I hope I have now improved the note sufficiently. Soidi (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Questioning the need for notes 2,3,4 and 5

Once again, I wish to be humble and recognize that a lot of work and discussion has gone into this article. Nonetheless, sometimes a fresh pair of eyes can help...

I understand the need of Note 1 to provide further detail that would disrupt the flow of the lead if included directly in the lead. However, I don't think notes 2-5 serve the same purpose. IMHO, the best way to provide further detail is via a Wikilink to the relevant article. Notes are rarely used in Wikipedia and, IMO, should only be used when there is no relevant article or the relevant article covers a much broader scope than an important point that needs to be brought to the attention of the reader without relying on him to follow the wikilink and wade through the relevant article.

IMO, notes 2-5 do not fit the above criteria.

Note 2: Explains a little bit about the Tridentine Mass. My comment: There already is a link to Tridentine Mass immediately before this note. IMO, Note 2 doesn't have value considering how easy it is for the reader to jump to the Tridentine Mass article.

Note 3: Explains a little about clerical celibacy. The article on Clerical celibacy can be linked to from the body of the article text.

Note 4: Provides a brief definition and history of the Roman Curia. My comment: Why not just link to the Roman Curia article?

Note 5: Provides more detail on persecution of Roman Catholics during the French Revolution. My comment: Why have a note on this particular period of time and not on others? Why is it important for the reader to have this additional information? The relevant article is Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution. Why not just link to that?

In conclusion, I think this article suffers from a creeping proliferation of notes. I understand the need for Note 1 and I think that need is not yet fully met and so have proposed another Note (see my comment titled "Time for compromise and collaboration" above).

However, I think that notes 2-5 do not serve the same purpose as Note 1 and therefore should be removed.

--Richard (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This too sounds good to me. Soidi (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree because these notes were the result of suggestions of some of Wikipedia's best FAC reviewers. We created them after the last peer review and they were reviewed and agreed to by multiple editors as a way to keep vital and useful information without cluttering up the article. Of the 34 people who have reviewed the article since these notes were created, you are the first to make this suggestion. NancyHeise ^talk 23:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nancy (and others), please ask yourself why these four notes (#2-#5) are worth having in this article. Would the article fail to make important points if they were deleted? Also, ask yourself why other parts of the article don't equally merit similar notes providing additional details. I imagine I could easily find 10-20 places where one could suggest a note providing additional detail. What's so special about the 4 points that currently have notes?

I confess that I pretty much missed the FAC review process. I have not been as active on Wikipedia in recent months as I used to be. I really don't like pushing an agenda against what appears to be an established consensus so I will not press my opinion at this time unless others indicate their support and agreement. Would you do me the favor of re-raising my comments the next time this article goes under peer review or FAC review? I think that some of the FAC reviewers might agree with me if they read my comments.

--Richard (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. Your comments are valid points but you must realize that they have been considered before. All of your suggestions were they way we had the article before the last peer review, I just wikilinked without additional explanation. The notes were added after discussion involving editors who wanted more detailed info in the main article on these subjects and those who wanted to keep the article from becoming cluttered with too much detail. The notes were the agreed format that satisfied everyone. NancyHeise ^talk 13:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Church

When you try to reach any sort of compromise with Soidi, things just become ridiculous. In the past two months all but a couple of Soidis 300 "contributions" to Wikipedia have been pushing his view on this issue. The pieces now added by Soidi to the agreed referenced text are erroneous and misleading, representing original research. As explained above, and in the article notes and references the term "Roman Church" is not synonymous with the Catholic Church, but applies to the Church in the City of Rome. Roman Catholic Church has been accepted as the title of the article, even though the Church clearly self-identifies as the Catholic Church. That is more than enough of a compromise to Soidi's and others' viewpoints. Continued cavilling over the name the Church uses officially and self-identifies with is simply POV-pushing. Catholic Church is clearly the official name, used in the Catechism and defined in Lumen Gentium, the Church Constitution. If this is not satisfactory to certain viewpoints, the that is tough, but those are the facts. The only other alternative would be to rename the page Catholic Church and use Roman Catholic Church as the additional name. Xandar 21:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar says "Roman Church" means only "the Church in the City of Rome". The Second Vatican Council quoted two important documents of the Church as saying that the Church as a whole is (also) called the Roman Church. Do we believe Xandar or the Second Vatican Council? Soidi (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record... I support doing this renaming but I gave up all hope of this long ago because the opposition was so vehement. I am not a fan of tilting against windmills. --Richard (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where all of this fits in, but to call the entire institution "Roman Church" is ridiculous, because the 22 Eastern rites in Union with the Church are not Roman. They are Catholic, and it is the only Catholic Church in the sense of being Universal - what other Apostolic Church has 23 different Liturgies? It is also insulting to me, as an Eastern Catholic, to describe the Church as Roman. Its Roman Catholic. I am not Roman, but I sure am part of the Catholic Church. Therefore, I am inclined to agree with Xandar here. Gabr-el 22:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Second Vatican Council quoted two important documents of the Church as saying that the Church as a whole is (also) called the Roman Church. Do you repudiate the Second Vatican Council? Soidi (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Over 15 editors considered Soidi's arguments and rejected them.[96],[97] Gimmetrow is the only editor who agreed with him on the issue of "official", he did not on agree with him on "Roman". New evidence has also revealed that our top source supporting article text, Whithead, is also used by the one source that is overseen by the Roman Curia, Eternal Word Television Network which is a member of SIGNIS.[98] [99] [100] This Roman Curia approved source, EWTN, and the Catholic Newspaper Our Sunday Visitor, used Whitehead to present worldwide viewers with the answer to the question of what is the Church's official name.[101] Two other sources are cited in the article to support Whitehead's assertions[102] Soidi provides no sources to support his views but relies on his own personal interpretations of orginal documents WP:OR that are nowhere discussed by any author as being evidence of the Church's official name. In order to comply with Soidi's suggestions, we would have to violate WP:Consensus, WP:RS, and WP:OR.NancyHeise ^talk 23:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Roman Curia does not oversee or guarantee what appears on the EWTN website. The voting was not on the addition that I have made to the article: I left untouched the phrase about an alleged official name and the accompanying note that contained Whitehead and Woodhead (was Woodhead in it when it was voted?). So my addition violates no consensus. It is not Original Research: I have given five sources that actually state, without any interpretation on my part, that the Church as a whole is called Roman. I am leaving in the article NH's sources, all of them. She should leave in the article the sources I have given. And really, she ought to read them. (I put this in bold, to make sure NH reads it, since she continues to make these contrary-to-fact statements.) Soidi (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The only time I have heard the term ' Roman church ' used in any sort of regular discourse to refer to the Catholic Church, is by the more radical exponents of Hyper Calvinism - Ian Paisley sort of territory. The article already includes both Roman Catholic Church and Catholic Church in the introduction anyway, which seems to be a reasonable compromise. I cannot believe there is so much discussion on the name. Kilfeno (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Quotations from Ian Paisley are obviously better known in County Clare than quotations from the Second Vatican Council. The Council did cite two important documents of the Catholic Church as saying that the Church "is called" (in Latin, dicitur) the Roman Church. Soidi (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And how many times has it cited Catholic Church? Your logic is flawed; so the Church mentions the fact that it gets called Roman Church is going to be the official name? Gabr-el 06:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Six times" is the answer to the question how many times Lumen gentium mentions "catholic Church" (four times with lower-case c, twice with upper-case - I refer of course to the original text, not to a translation into any modern language). In none of those cases does it declare "Catholic Church" to be the Church's official name. It does state that the Church "is called" the Roman Church, but since it says nothing about any "official" name, it quite obviously does not say that this is the Church's official name (if there is such a thing). Soidi (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To avoid fractured conversation, I request that all future conversation on name take place below at section entitled "name". I will not be responding to comments on name in these sections above and I ask others to refrain from doing so if they want their comments read and considered by me Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Official name

The first three paragraphs of this source [103] support article text use of the term "official". This source is overseen and approved by the Roman Curia and is the only source used by the Roman Curia to explain to the worldwide Catholic audience the official name of the Church. 15 editors agreed to use of the term "official" after a variety of other terms were proposed and rejected after these editors considered the use of the term "official" in the three sources used to support article text.[104],[105]. No where does article text say that "Catholic Church is the one and only official name". The article text explains use of the term "official" in the lead sentence by stating in the note that the Church uses Catholic Church "in her most authoritatitve and self-defining documents". The link to Whitehead provides all explanation of other terms and how the Church uses them. NancyHeise ^talk 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article does not claim that "Catholic Church" is the one and only official name, why do you object to the mention in the article of another name that the Church does in fact use? Soidi (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, when you say "the article does not claim...", do you mean this Wikipedia article or the article by Whitehead? --Richard (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I was only quoting NH, who wrote: "No where (sic) does article text (sic) say that 'Catholic Church is the one and only official name'." Soidi (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, there is a difference between a name the Church calls itself and the Church's official name. You are chronically using them interchangeably. I let others call me "Flipper" or "crazy Phil" and I have called myself "Farsight" or "Phil". That does not change the fact that my name is officially "Philip". Simply because the Church uses another name, it does not mean that it is another official name. Also - your repeated changes to the article made against consensus, even if right, are considered by wikipedia policy to be "disruptive edits". They need to stop. Farsight001 (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Did I remove from the article its statement that the Church is officially called "Catholic Church"? Have I now altered "Note 1" in any way? So what are you complaining about? What statement have I now made within the article that is against consensus? The question whether the Church is called "Roman" has never been voted on, with or without a resulting consensus. Soidi (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You did change the article without consensus and Xandar changed it back. No one has ever agreed with you on "Roman", not even Gimmetrow but you still keep arguing it even though over 15 editors have considered it and rejected the argument because you have no sources that say what you are saying. NancyHeise ^talk 12:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To avoid fractured conversation, I request that all future conversation on name take place below at section entitled "name". I will not be responding to comments on name in these sections above and I ask others to refrain from doing so if they want their comments read and considered by me Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

History section: Picky points about the RCC in Japan

The text reads "Despite enforced isolation, a minority Christian population survived into the 19th century."

To me, this is ambiguous because it suggests that perhaps the "minority Christian population" survived into the 19th century but not into the 20th century. I'm fairly sure that what happened is that the "minority Christian population" survived until the Meiji Restoration when freedom of religion was instituted and the previously clandestine Japanese Catholics could practice their faith openly. The text should make this more clear. Also, I believe it was a very tiny minority and the text might be more accurate in mentioning how small the minority was.

Also... why does the text say "minority Christian population"? The 16th century missionaries were Jesuits and Franciscans. This is an article about the RCC so the text could say "minority Catholic population". The first Protestant missionaries arrived in 1859.[106]

--Richard (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Even pickier replies: - a link to Kirishitan should certainly be added. It was a rather large minority at the beginning of the period - the article says ca 200k, and a much smaller one by the end, but still 10s of thousands, but I dare say no reliable numbers are available, so we should not go there. The division between those who linked up again with the Catholic hierarchy after 1873 and those who did not suggests "Christian" is the better term. Something might be added to clarify the first point. Johnbod (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think either of your comments were picky and I appreciate them. Good points. I added link to Kirishitan, checked the sources again, and changed the wording in the next sentence to read "An underground minority Christian population survived throughout this period of persecution and enforced isolation which was eventually lifted in the 19th century." NancyHeise ^talk 13:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Gabr-el on "Roman"

Gabr-el has reverted a sourced edit. The only reason he has given is "You cannot deny the rules of etiquette tha govern wikipedia. The consensus is not even finished." I certainly do not deny, nor do I reject, the rules of etiquette that govern (or try to govern) Wikipedia, in particular those that indicate that one should not simply revert reliably sourced edits, but should at least first discuss them on Talk. Well then, Gabr-el, what consensus has there been on the question of whether the Church calls itself the Roman Church? When was it voted on? NH refers to a vote on "officially known as the Catholic Church" and on note 1. I have left these untouched. But there has been no vote of which I am aware on this other matter, which was raised only later. Unless you can justify your action of reverting a reliably sourced edit, I feel free to restore it. Soidi (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We have all watched and been involved in this discussion with you from the beginning. We have watched over 15 editors consider your argument over "Roman" and reject it outright. Not even one editor has agreed with your argument on "Roman" because it is such WP:OR on your part. NancyHeise ^talk 12:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits should also never be added while the potential addition of those very edits are being discussed. Gabr-el's removal of your addition was to undo the change you made before the discussion was concluded. He was in the right, and even if he wasn't, this isn't the place to complain about it. Go find an admin. Farsight001 (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that Soidi's edit to the lead was ill-advised although I wish to make a few picky points about Farsight001's response. In general, the model I would advocate is WP:BRD which would suggest that both Soidi and Gabr-el were right (Soidi was bold and Gabr-el reverted). However, WP:BRD isn't the best approach if you know in advance that an article is the locus of contentious dispute or that your edit is likely be disputed. Part of being collegial and collaborative involves not making edits that you know others will want to revert. Thus, Soidi should have had the courtesy to discuss first especially since his new tack is so close to the old one that other editors might easily confuse the new point with the old one. Let us be collegial and collaborative. That means more discussion and consensus and less unilateral editing. You may notice that I have avoided editing this article directly precisely for these reasons.

However, I disagree with Farsight001 about this not being the place to complain about it. These kinds of things should be resolved on article Talk Pages so as not to clutter up places like WP:ANI with petty squabbles. I am an admin but I don't see what an admin can do in this situation except to point to the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But, any editor can do that; it doesn't take an admin to do that. There has been no actionable offense that I can see so far.

I will comment that, in the heat of debate, there has been a bit of incivility and the edits and reversions are just this side of edit-warring. I did briefly contemplate page protection but a review of the edit history seemed to indicate that the edit/reversion exchanges did not rise to a level to warrant that.

Soidi seems to be careful to stay just this side of the line but I would advise more discussion and less unilateral editing.

Nancy, calling someone a troll is not very civil. Please assume good faith. I know Soidi's insistence on pushing his POV can be exasperating and seem trollish. However, I have seen real trolls and I think Soidi doesn't quite qualify. Please don't dismiss him as a troll but rather continue to engage him as a good faith (if somewhat annoying and obnoxious) editor.

Soidi, I will make a comment that I have made to editors of other articles that I've worked on.

1. Just because it's sourced doesn't mean it's relevant
2. Just because it's relevant doesn't mean it belongs in the lead

There is more to good article writing than finding a source for a fact that you want to stick in the lead.

I disagree with Nancy about the adequacy of Note 1 (see discussion below) but I see that as a legitimate difference of opinion and I won't push it unless other editors support my argument. I think any comment about the Catholic Church referring to itself as "the Roman Church" belongs at best in Note 1 if at all and certainly not in the lead where it would be a dilatory distraction.

Hope this helps.

--Richard (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your independent outside opinions. I will try to assume better faith in dealing with Soidi. I hope he will listen to you too. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Name

Over 15 editors considered Soidi's arguments and rejected them.[107],[108] Gimmetrow is the only editor who agreed with him on the issue of "official", he did not on agree with him on "Roman". New evidence has also revealed that our top source supporting article text, Whithead, is also used by the one source that is overseen by the Roman Curia, Eternal Word Television Network which is a member of SIGNIS.[109] [110] [111] This Roman Curia approved source, EWTN, and the Catholic Newspaper Our Sunday Visitor, used Whitehead to present worldwide viewers with the answer to the question of what is the Church's official name.[112] Two other sources are cited in the article to support Whitehead's assertions[113] Soidi provides no sources to support his views but relies on his own personal interpretations of orginal documents WP:OR that are nowhere discussed by any author as being evidence of the Church's official name. In order to comply with Soidi's suggestions, we would have to violate WP:Consensus, WP:RS, and WP:OR. In spite of not having anyone agree with his arguments, Soidi has persistently edit warred with various editors by adding content that has been expressly rejected by consensus. There is a definition of troll that seems to fit Soidi's efforts in this matter especially when so many people have considered his arguments and rejected them and he continues to fill the page with commentary that is unsupported by sources. NancyHeise ^talk 13:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on "The Church is called Roman" and other matters, such as the note

Farsight said: "Edits should never be added while the potential addition of those very edits are being discussed. Gabr-el's removal of your addition was to undo the change you made before the discussion was concluded." Well then, please discuss this question (the Church is called Roman both commonly and by the Church itself) that was raised after the vote on "officially known as the Catholic Church" and note 1, and stop talking instead of a consensus vote on that other question, which is quite distinct. NH doesn't seem to have got into her head that, while I did permit myself to add some remarks in support of Gimmetrow's views on that matter, for my own part I am not talking about the official name question. I have moved on. She seems to be stuck a couple of weeks back. Gimmetrow's arguments are against the "official name" question. My edit is not. It is about whether the Church is called Roman.

NH says there are no sources that say what I say. Has she perhaps refused to read them? I say that the Church is called Roman. They say, and I quote: "The name 'Roman' has been adopted by the Church herself"; "(The Church) is called the 'holy (catholic apostolic) Roman Church' in the Profession of Faith of Trent and in the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith Dei Filius"; "the profession of faith prescribed by Pope Innocent III in 1208 for the Waldensians who wished to return to the Catholic Church was as follows: 'We believe in our hearts and we profess orally that there is one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic [Church], outside of which we believe that no one will be saved.'" Can anyone sincerely say that these sources do not say that the Church is called Roman? That is what I say, and that is what they say. Does even one of the cited sources fail to say that the Church is called Roman? NH, who bases her own edits on interpretations of sources, says that my edit, which only states what the sources explicitly say, is Original Research. She must have a peculiar idea of Original Research, different from that in WP:OR. What part of the statement that the Church is called Roman is Original Research, not directly "attributable to a reliable, published source"? Would NH please be precise for once. Soidi (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Soidi,

• 1 Please provide a link to your sources who say these are evidence of the Church's official name.
• 2 Please provide diff to even one editor who has agreed with you on this in all the time you have raised it over an over again for the past three talk pages (see the past two archives). NancyHeise ^talk 16:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit says the Church is called Roman. It is not concerned with the question of the Church's official name. The sources support what the edit says. Whether they support other theses or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Soidi (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The note is discussing the Church's official name. Why do we need to have any more information in the note when it expressly states that "Roman" was rejected and this is sourced to our top sources? Your edits to amend this information have all been rejected by several other editors who revert them and ask you to stop making them because no one agrees with them. You still have not provided a diff to one editor who agrees with your arguments on "Roman" nor any diff to any source that supports your personal interpretation of original documents. NancyHeise ^talk 17:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There can be a valid difference of opinion about the scope of Note 1. If the scope of Note 1 is solely "the official name of the Church", then Nancy's position is reasonable. However, I see value in educating the reader beyond the simple assertion "the official name of the church is 'the Catholic Church'" and explaining further why the other popular locution "the Roman Catholic Church" was rejected by the authors of Vatican I and II and why some people (inside and outside of the Church) advocate it. Whether this is done in Note 1 or "Note 1.5" is not important to me but I think we do the reader a disservice by not filling in the relevant historical and sectarian context if only in concise summary with links to relevant sources for more detailed explication.

--Richard (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Because this was already discussed earlier and agreed that the link to Whitehead sufficed for further explanation, I will wait to see if anyone else wants more info on use of Roman before making any changes to the consensus agreed form already in article text. So far this idea has been persistently rejected every time Soidi has brought it up for consideration. NancyHeise ^talk 17:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" - the Catholic perspective

Once again, I am not arguing for "Roman Catholic Church". However, I do think it is valuable to document the issue, especially its historical context. I have just read the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on "Catholic" and found it enlightening at least as to the Catholic perspective. I found the following points enlightening:

1. The church has been referred to as "the Catholic Church" since the days of the Church Fathers
2. At one point in time, "Roman" and "Catholic" were considered interchangeable.
3. Later, it seems that the Catholic Church dropped the appellation "Roman" in favor of just "the Catholic Church".

I also found the following passage in the Catholic Encyclopedia article enlightening...

Although belief in the "holy Church" was included in the earliest form of the Roman Creed, the word Catholic does not seem to have been added to the Creed anywhere in the West until the fourth century.

With regard to the modern use of the word, Roman Catholic is the designation employed in the legislative enactments of Protestant England, but Catholic is that in ordinary use on the Continent of Europe, especially in Latin countries. Indeed, historians of all schools, at least for brevity's sake, frequently contrast Catholic and Protestant, without any qualification. In England, since the middle of the sixteenth century, indignant protests have been constantly made against the "exclusive and arrogant usurpation" of the name Catholic by the Church of Rome.

I really think the above points should be added to Note 1 along with the points made by Whitehead that I have outlined in the section "Time for compromise and collaboration" above. IMO, they really help the reader to understand the historical context of why the Church is officially called "the Catholic Church" while others call it "the Roman Catholic Church".

--Richard (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The present note 1 contains all of the information you list in the points above except the second which is already alluded to in the note description of the rejection of use of "Roman". Because New Advent was not considered to be a top source and because use of "Roman" is already linked to and discussed in our top source, Whitehead, I think it is unhelpful to go into more detail on use of Roman. Also, I can not find your point 2 in the link you provided (New Advent.org). Also, New Advent was not considered to be a top source, it is created by and maintained by a single person named Kevin Knight [114] and has no oversight either by the Church or scholarly peer reviews as suggested by WP:Reliable source examples. Also, Kevin Knight points users of New Advent to EWTN for scholarly insight into Catholic questions. EWTN uses Whitehead to explain the Church's name including use of "Roman". NancyHeise ^talk 16:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, perhaps I am guilty of sloppy reading or perhaps the text is unclear. How do you read the following sentence which is towards the end of the second paragraph of the New Advent article?

The one clear idea underlying all is orthodox as opposed to heretical, and Kattenbusch does not hesitate to admit that in Cyprian we first see how Catholic and Roman came eventually to be regarded as interchangeable terms. (Cf. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, II, 149-168.)

Upon re-reading this, it's not clear who regards "Catholic" and "Roman" as interchangeable. I hope there is some editor who cares enough about this to dig into Kattenbusch, Cyprian and Harnack to get a clearer interpretation of the sentence.

I reiterate that this is just about putting the issue in historical context. I accept that Vatican I and Vatican II rejected "Roman Catholic Church" in favor of "the Catholic Church". The point I'm getting at is that prior to Vatican I, there must have been Catholics who were leaning towards or at least neutral to the use of the locution "Roman Catholic Church" to describe the church and the English-speaking bishops felt it necessary to conduct a vigorous campaign against the locution.

This is bordering on OR but my conjecture is that there was a time when "Roman" and "Catholic" were seen as interchangeable. Probably the Roman Curia saw no harm in characterizing the church as "the Roman Church" perhaps as a way of distinguishing themselves from the Eastern Orthodox. After all, there is the use of "Roman" in the "Holy Roman Empire". This suggests that the Catholic Church was once proud to be called "Roman".

However, starting in the 16th century, Anglicans and Protestants started using the locution as a way of supporting their sectarian claims. By the time you get to Vatican I in 1870, the English-speaking Catholic bishops feel strongly enough about the way the Anglicans and Protestants are using the locution that they feel that they must mount a vigourous campaign to make sure that the Catholic Church does not use this locution in any of the documents coming out of Vatican I.

I think this story is interesting and relevant (if I got it right). I just don't quite know where in Wikipedia it belongs. But I do know it does NOT belong in the lead of this article!

--Richard (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to have a better link to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic Answers is overseen by official authorities and they actually show the original page out of the 1913 edition. Here is a link to their page. Although I am unsure legally how much can be linked to based on the permissions.]Marauder40 (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you were trying to link to [115] ? Yes, this is from the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia that was created by scholars. EWTN is considered to be a more recent source that has current Church oversight, for this reason and because WP:Reliable source examples discusses the issue of more recent publications as opposed to older forms, we used EWTN. NancyHeise ^talk 17:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the name in the lead and associated Note 1

I personally find this discussion of names of the Church interesting but not terribly important in the context of deciding what belongs in this article and in the lead. Further explication of the different names that the Church uses to refer to itself ("Holy Church", "Roman Church", "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church") absolutely does not belong in the lead. I think the version of the lead arrived at by near-consensus (except Soidi) is adequate. If you try to stuff every amplification of every point into the lead, it rapidly becomes unwieldy. There's almost enough information about the names of the Catholic Church to warrant a short article but I can't think of a good encyclopedic article title. For instance, Names of the Catholic Church sounds kind of trite to me. If anyone can think of a good article name, I'd be very interested to hear it. I think a very concise summary of the historical development of the names "Roman Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" could be inserted into Note 1 or "Note 1.5" but I can live with the article in its current state. I would suggest that Soidi take a similar attitude and generate less heartburn for himself and for the rest of us. (Or, in other words, Soidi may be right but that doesn't mean it's important to insert what he wants to insert.) --Richard (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it was Gimmetrow who also proposed creation of such an article but it may have been someone else, I can't remember who it was now. NancyHeise ^talk 17:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Name in contemporary official documents vs. name in historical official documents

Following up on my conjecture about "Roman" and "Catholic" being interchangeable at one point in time, I started to wonder if the problem is that we are confusing the assertion "the official name of the Church is 'the Catholic Church'" with the assertion "the official name of the Church has always been 'the Catholic Church'". Once again, if the latter assertion were true, it would not have been necessary for the English-speaking bishops to mount a vigourous campaign against the use of the locution "Roman Catholic Church". It would have been "preaching to the choir".

When Soidi presents examples of the church calling itself "the Roman Church", are these documents pre-1870 or post-1870? Is it possible that, prior to 1870, various locutions including "Roman Church" and "Catholic Church" were used with a preference towards "Catholic Church"? But then, as a result of the vigourous campaign mounted by the English-speaking bishops, the Church saw the sectarian issues in using the locution "Roman Church" and abandoned (rejected) it in favor of using "the Catholic Church" exclusively? This is not to argue that "the Catholic Church" is a post-1870 neologism but to argue that the insistence on using "the Catholic Church" exclusively became stronger post-1870.

Thus, historically, the Church has used a number of locutions to refer to itself (including "the Roman Church") but currently it uses "the Catholic Church" in official documents.

--Richard (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing Soidi's sources, I have to correct myself because I see that his sources include Pius XII's use of "Roman" which is obviously post-1870. So, I have to revise my conjecture to assert that, post-1870, there has been an increasing trend to use "the Catholic Church" in preference to "Roman Catholic Church" and "Roman Church" but that it is unclear when or if there was a clear decision to adopt "the Catholic Church" as the official name. The decision may have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

--Richard (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There are other post-1870 documents also that use "Roman Catholic". But, unless we find a different document that says that one of these documents says what it says, we cannot cite it: if we were simply to quote the document itself, there would be a cry of "Original Research!" How much simpler it would be if we were allowed to quote the document as available in Internet or printed form, instead of having to quote another document (in Internet or printed form) that quotes the document that we could more easily find by going to it directly! But such are the rules of Wikipedia.

The dislike of "Roman Catholic" seems to be peculiar to the English-speaking world. All that the English-speaking bishops obtained at the First Vatican Council was to have "apostolica" inserted between "catholica" and "Romana": the adjective "Romana" remained with reference to the Church as a whole. (Rather weak grounds for the conclusion that some people draw.) There seems to be no such dislike of the term "Roman" elsewhere. Spanish speakers will say, as the most natural thing in the world: "Yo soy católico apostólico romano" or even, as I have heard, "Yo soy muy católico apostólico romano". I doubt if 1870 marked any change in attitude either in the English-speaking world or in the world in general. Soidi (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... according to Whitehead and New Advent, the legal name of the Catholic Church is "the Catholic Church" in Latin countries and the effort to label it "the Roman Catholic Church" comes from the English-speaking countries where both Protestants and some Catholics use the name. Whitehead's article is a polemic arguing against the use of "Roman Catholic" presumably by English speakers.

What lay people say in Spanish or English is not really relevant here since the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" in the lead covers that pretty well. The real underlying issue, IMO, is the sectarian agenda that causes some people to want to add "Roman" and others to insist that it be left out. This, to me, is real knowledge without which the question of "Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic" is just one of words. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet unless the word "Roman" is taken to mean something less than sweet.

At the end of the day, I think the authoritative source has to come from the Vatican in some form. I am a bit surprised that Nancy does not seem to think the use of "Roman" in the encyclicals of Pius XII constitute "official" references to the church. Your two citations of Pius XII seemed to be a "slam dunk" to me so I think I need to dig back into some of the Talk Page archives to understand the argument here. I would have thought an encyclical would be an official a document as any so there must be more to the definition of "official name" than I understand at the moment.  :--Richard (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

NH doesn't really deny that "Roman" is used officially of the Church in the encyclicals (or for that matter in Lumen gentium). She only says that the encyclicals are not talking about whether the Church has an official name. Of course, they aren't. Does any Vatican document talk about an official name of the Church? But they do officially call the Church by certain names, including "Catholic Church". That is all. Soidi (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on "The Church is called Roman"

Farsight said: "Edits should never be added while the potential addition of those very edits are being discussed. Gabr-el's removal of your addition was to undo the change you made before the discussion was concluded." Well then, please discuss this question (the Church is called Roman both commonly and by the Church itself) that was raised after the vote on "officially known as the Catholic Church" and note 1, and stop talking instead of a consensus vote on that other question, which is quite distinct. NH doesn't seem to have got into her head that, while I did permit myself to add some remarks in support of Gimmetrow's views on that matter, for my own part I am not talking about the official name question. I have moved on. She seems to be stuck a couple of weeks back. Gimmetrow's arguments are against the "official name" question. My edit is not. It is about whether the Church is called Roman.

NH says there are no sources that say what I say. Has she perhaps refused to read them? I say that the Church is called Roman. They say, and I quote: "The name 'Roman' has been adopted by the Church herself"; "(The Church) is called the 'holy (catholic apostolic) Roman Church' in the Profession of Faith of Trent and in the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith Dei Filius"; "the profession of faith prescribed by Pope Innocent III in 1208 for the Waldensians who wished to return to the Catholic Church was as follows: 'We believe in our hearts and we profess orally that there is one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic [Church], outside of which we believe that no one will be saved.'" Can anyone sincerely say that these sources do not say that the Church is called Roman? That is what I say, and that is what they say. Does even one of the cited sources fail to say that the Church is called Roman? NH, who bases her own edits on interpretations of sources, says that my edit, which only states what the sources explicitly say, is Original Research. She must have a peculiar idea of Original Research, different from that in WP:OR. What part of the statement that the Church is called Roman is Original Research, not directly "attributable to a reliable, published source"? Would NH please be precise for once. Soidi (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Soidi,

• 1 Please provide a link to your sources who say these are evidence of the Church's official name.
• 2 Please provide diff to even one editor who has agreed with you on this in all the time you have raised it over an over again for the past three talk pages (see the past two archives). NancyHeise ^talk 16:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit says the Church is called Roman. It is not concerned with the question of the Church's official name. The sources support what the edit says. Whether they support other theses or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Soidi (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The note is discussing the Church's official name. Why do we need to have any more information in the note when it expressly states that "Roman" was rejected and this is sourced to our top sources? Your edits to amend this information have all been rejected by several other editors who revert them and ask you to stop making them because no one agrees with them. You still have not provided a diff to one editor who agrees with your arguments on "Roman" nor any diff to any source that supports your personal interpretation of original documents. NancyHeise ^talk 17:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The note is discussing the Church's official name, but my edit is not discussing it, and my edit is not in the note. Would you please read it and its cited sources now? You will find it here. It is outside the note, which you demanded should be considered sacred and inviolable. The edit fits quite well outside the note, with "Roman" in bold, parallel with the bolded "official" name. Soidi (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The preceding questions seem to be attempts to divert the discussion to the question of the Church's official name. The edit is unrelated to the vote taken on "official name" and "note 1", before the question of the Church being called Roman was first raised. Whether the Church does or does not have an "official" name, it can still be true that the Church is called by other names also.

Gimmetrow diverted to the "official name" question the discussion first on the meaning of "catholic" in Ignatius of Antioch and then, several times, on the "Church called Roman" question. If he wants to raise it again, I beg him to put it under a different heading.

Now will NH please stop trailing her red herrings and explain why she called my edit Original Research? This was the first question put to her here. She has not yet answered it. Soidi (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, the question here is not so much whether the Church has ever called itself "the Roman Church" as whether it is important to include that name in the lead. The Church has used various locutions to refer to itself but including all those locutions in the lead would be unwieldy. I'm not even convinced that all the locutions should be included in Note 1. What I do feel is that the reader needs to be given an understanding of why the Church prefers the locution "the Catholic Church" to "the Roman Catholic Church". There is a sectarian underpinning to this preference. That is, it is a different kind of issue from saying "United States" vs. "United States of America". There is no change in meaning when you drop "of America" but there is a huge change of meaning if you add "Roman" or drop it. That should be explained somewhere in Wikipedia. I prefer Note 1 as the locus for the explanation.

--Richard (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your idea. And I wish you well in trying to get it accepted. By all means discuss it under the heading of "Note 1" or whatever. It is a broader idea than the question here, which is about the reversal of one particular concrete edit on the grounds that it was Original Research and that it cited no source that declared that the sources it did cite were evidence of the Church's official name. Doubtless the real reason for the reversal was that some people disliked having their POV that the Church rejects the term "Roman" contradicted by the fact that the Church is (very much officially) called Roman. They reacted by denying the fact. Anything at all (accusations of Original Research; fairy-tale inflation of the importance of opinions contrary to the documented fact, complicated demands that sources be produced to say the cited sources said something they did not say ...) was grasped at to avoid admitting the documented fact. They would not have reacted so fiercely to the statement that the Church is called the Mystical Body of Christ or the Church of God. Their reaction to this troubling of their POV is the very reason why it is important, for the sake of balance, to include in the article the verifiable fact that the Church is called Roman. - There, perhaps I have let myself be led off again by a red herring. Soidi (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Original Research is reading an original document and interpreting what it means. Because Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources we can not cite a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of an original document. Our article text cites scholars interpretations of original documents and they all say that when the Church uses the term "Roman" it is discussing something related to the diocese of Rome - thus we would make the article factually incorrect and violate WP:OR by keeping Soidi's edits which is why everyone has reverted them whenever he adds them and no one has agreed with him on that point - ever. The issue that Richard is now bringing up - aside from Soidi's argument - is to add something to note 1 telling Reader why the bishops rejected the term "Roman" as a prefix for the Church. That is a different and new issue. NancyHeise ^talk 19:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, Nancy, but when we read Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi (1943) saying "If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church" and in in Humani Generis (1950) saying " Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago... teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.", it seems clear to me that, in both instances, Pius XII is using "Roman" to refer to the entire Catholic Church, Latin-rite or not. If he is not, I have some serious theological issues about what he wrote. ^&)

However, those documents are from over a half a century ago. According to my conjecture, there has been an evolutionary trend to use "the Catholic Church" in preference to "the Roman Catholic Church" in order to defuse the kind of sectarian attack that focuses on the "Romaness" of the Catholic Church. While I don't have sources to support my conjecture about the timing and evolutionary nature of this trend, the motivation for preferring "the Catholic Church" is clearly documented by Whitehead and New Advent.

I really think it is time to abandon the opposition to Soidi's assertion that sometimes in the past the church has referred to itself as "the Roman Church" or the "Roman Catholic Church". We should grant that assertion and instead debate whether anything needs to be added to the lead in this regard. I don't think the lead should be changed; it is fine as it is.

There is a difference between facts and data on the one hand and information and value to the reader on the other hand. Just because something is true doesn't mean it belongs in the lead. Since some people may never read much more than the lead, it has to be very carefully written to provide a stand-alone read. It is not useful to cram facts in that do not make a critical point and provide value to the reader.

So I would ask "Why is the inclusion of 'Roman' in the lead important at all?" To insist that the Church is "Roman" smacks of an agenda such as that of the Anglicans described by Whitehead. I have no problem discussing this agenda somewhere in Wikipedia (in a Note to this article or in a separate article). However, insisting on cramming it into the lead suggests an obsession with the agenda over a desire to impart information to the reader in a smooth and effective manner.

Soidi's efforts seem to prove that the Catholic Church has used various locutions to describe itself in the past. I support using a Note to describe the evolution towards using "the Catholic Church" preferentially over all other locutions, especially ones including the appellation "Roman". --Richard (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

These documents you cite are not discussing the official name of the Church Mystici Corporis Christi (1943) Humani Generis (1950), nor are they cited by any scholar as evidence of the Church's official name which is what our note 1 is about. Soidi's efforts do not improve our note or article text but persistently add information that multiple editors have agreed is unnecessary and smacks of agenda pushing as you are also agreeing to here. I think that all we need to say at this point is that we all agree that it is not important to insist that the Church is "Roman". As to your suggestion about a note discussing evolution towards using Catholic Church - it is apparent from the sources and from reading other encyclopedia articles [116] on the RCC that the Church has always called itself the Catholic Church from very early beginnings, it has not evolved but stayed the same. Per the reliable sources, the term Roman Catholic is primarily a term used in English speaking countries for the reasons already discussed in the linked sources. You have suggested adding to our note to let Reader know why the term "Roman" was considered and then rejected as a prefix through the efforts of the English bishops. I am not opposed to this idea, I am not particularly in favor of it since it adds more information that is already accessible through the links but I am wondering what other editors think of the idea before I make a decision on it. NancyHeise ^talk 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, if the "official" name of the church has always been "the Catholic Church", I cannot see why the English-speaking bishops would have had to wage a vigorous campaign to keep the locution "the Roman Catholic Church" out of the official documents of Vatican I. There was clearly something that they were arguing against. Everybody seems to want to argue that it is "cut and dried" that the official name always was, is and always will be "the Catholic Church". I suspect that church history is somewhat messier than that nice, clean narrative.

I don't have a problem accepting that the proponents of the locution "the Catholic Church" have won or are winning the day. (cf. Whitehead). However, "where there's smoke, there's fire" and when you have bishops waging vigorous campaigns and Whitehead and New Advent writing polemically against the locution "the Roman Catholic Church", it suggests that the debate is not one that was closed centuries ago.

--Richard (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It might also interest you that in an effort to make everyone happy on the name issue, I initially sided with Soidi, against consensus on this issue because I really did not care one way or the other, I just wanted everyone to come to agreement. I was eventually vastly overridden by consensus of editors, many of whom were Anglicans, who voted in favor of using the agreed wording and note 1. The opposition to Soidi is not a Catholic vs non-Catholic debate, it is about what is a reliable reference and what is not. NancyHeise ^talk 21:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What some people do not understand is that the term "Roman Church" when used by the Catholic Church refers, historically and presently, to the Church of the City of Rome. It is NOT any sort of synonym for the Catholic Church. The term is used frequently because it is the Apostolic See, the seat of the Roman Pontiff or Pope. Simply because it sounds a bit like "Roman catholic Church" does not mean there is any connection between the terms. Xandar 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course. The Syriac Poem of the Feast of St Peter and Paul testify to this. Gabr-el 05:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, what you say may be true of "some people" but I don't think it applies to me. Look at the two quotes above from Pius XII's encyclicals and tell me with a straight face that he is talking about "the Church of the City of Rome" and not "the Catholic Church".

I prefer the interpretation that, despite the fact that an encyclical is an official document, Pius XII's use of the word "Roman" is not necessarily an "official" name of the church, although I have yet to see a definition of what "official name" means.

--Richard (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

NH seems to have got you to accept that there is such a thing as an "official name", rather than a name used officially (two quite different concepts). "Not cited by any scholar as evidence of the Church's official name which is what our note 1 is about" - Is she succeeding in making you think that a document must discuss the question of what, if anything, is the alleged official name of the Church, in order to state quite explicitly, as the cited sources do, that the Church, the whole Church, is called Roman? No, I don't suppose she is succeeding in that. After all it was you who pointed out that the efforts of the English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council show that there was no one official name at that time, and nobody has suggested a later date at which an official name was adopted.

Does NH admit that the edit, which is not in note 1, reports factually what the cited sources say, and is not Original Research?

What Xandar does not want to understand is that, while "Roman Church" can refer to the local Church in Rome, the sources cited explicitly state that Popes, General Councils, and others use it also to mean the whole Church. Soidi (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only do our sources say that Roman Church, when used by the Church herself, refers to the diocese of Rome but that Roman Catholic Church, to Eastern Catholics means the Latin Rite, not the entire Catholic Church. Soidi thinks that I have persuaded others to think that Catholic Church is the official name by my powers of persuasion but he fails to mention that I specifically tried, in vain, to persuade the editors of this page to use a term that Soidi preferred. That effort by me and Soidi was expressly rejected in favor of use of "officially" because the editors, many of whom were Anglican or non-Catholic, looked at the references and decided for themselves that they supported the wording. I posted my support for the term only after everyone else posted theirs.[117],[118] NancyHeise ^talk 18:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, who denies that other sources say other things? I am only asking you to admit that the sources that I have cited say what they say. Do they or do they not say that the Church universal is called Roman? Soidi (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, this goes around and around in circles... What I write below is based on what I've read so far (mostly references from this article including ones inserted by Soidi and subsequently deleted)

It is clear that there are two primary names for the Church "the Catholic Church" and "the Roman Catholic Church". There are sources (e.g. Whitehead and New Advent) that argue that the "proper" and "official" name of the church is "the Catholic Church". I haven't yet seen many sources that argue that the "official" name of the church is or should be "the Roman Catholic Church" although that name is used in plenty of official, legal and governmental documents. (NB: Well, H.G. Hughes does make some arguments about "Roman" in the Ecclesiastical Review but he's not really arguing in favor of "the Roman Catholic Church" over "the Catholic Church")

This suggests that "the Catholic Church" is preferred but the use of the locution "the Roman Catholic Church" has not been completely deprecated. There are those who use "the Roman Catholic Church" to further sectarian agendas and others who are just plain used to it and have not been converted to using "the Catholic Church".

It's clear also that other names are used to identify the church such as "one holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church". There are sources that argue that all of these are adjectives describing the church and no one claims that "one holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church" is the "official" name of the church. No one really claims that "the Roman church" is the official name of the church although it is clearly used at times to designate the church.

Is it important to identify all the phrases used to identify the church? You could add "Church of Christ" and "Church of God" in to the mix if you go down that route. I think it is not important to identify all these phrases and I think "the Roman church" is no more important a name than these others. If we were to start an article titled Names of the Catholic Church, we could have a great time documenting all that we have learned from these discussions.

However, I feel quite strongly that "the Roman church" does not belong in the lead or even in Note 1. It is, AFAICT, really a tangential point that does not inform the reader of much that is useful. A discussion in Note 1 of the issues surrounding "Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic" would be far more enlightening, IMHO.

--Richard (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a separate point and perhaps deserves a new heading. NH attacked the edit originally on the grounds that it was Original Research, in other words, that it said something that was not stated expressly in the cited sources. To avoid admitting the baselessness of her claim, she repeatedly wrote about a vote that was taken before the edit was first proposed, and about a supposed untouchability of a note that the edit has not altered in any way. That is why the discussion has been going around in circles. If it is admitted that the sources do state what the edit says, then we can go on the question of whether the edit is appropriately included.

I would say it certainly is. The article begins with "The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church". Most readers will take that to mean that the only official name for the Church is "Catholic Church", and that the adjective other than "Catholic" by which the Church is referred to in the opening words is rejected. That adjective is not rejected: it is used officially. It is not important to mention other names by which the Church refers to itself (though the fact that the Church does refer to itself by several other names could be mentioned generically). But to avoid the misunderstanding to which I refer, it is important to mention explicitly and verifiably that the first of the two adjectives is not rejected by the Church.

What makes it even more important is the claim made in the note, on the single basis of one pseudonymous contributor to a monthly review, that the Church has rejected "Roman". (Two other sources are falsely given in support of this notion. Whitehead says that the English-speaking bishops succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using "Roman Catholic" officially itself - but their warning did not prevent the Church from calling itself Roman on that very occasion. And the 1889 writing says nothing about rejecting the adjective "Roman".) This claim, which has such a slender basis, needs to be balanced by an express verifiable statement of the opposite view. Soidi (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes... I have had my doubts about the authority of "Propagandist" and Whitehead. However, I haven't seen any sources that assert the opposite of what they claim. It's obvious to me that some Catholics (e.g. Propagandist and Whitehead) insist on "the Catholic Church" as the only official name of the church while others such as Pius XII were happy to use "Roman Catholic Church" and "Roman Church" in official documents.

The problem is... what you've submitted so far looks like OR because you are referencing primary documents rather than secondary ones. If you could find a source that is secondary in the sense that Propagandist and Whitehead are, that would fit Wikipedia's rules about OR much more nicely.

--Richard (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you say. Is H.J.Hughes a primary source, or Professor O'Brien, or Monsignor Fenton, or Carolyn Osiek? Even the Second Vatican Council document is not quoted for anything it declares on its own authority, but only for what it says about two earlier Church documents: in other words it is used as a secondary source stating what is in those documents. So in what sense am I "referencing primary documents rather than secondary ones"?

And if Pius XII (and Pius XI and John Paul II and other Popes) were happy to use "Roman Catholic Church" and "Roman Church", isn't it clear that the view of Propagandist and Whitehead is not the only view and should not be presented in Wikipedia as if it were? Soidi (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Roman Church" means the Church in the City of Rome. As for "Roman Catholic Church" no one is even claiming this is the official name of the Church, since it is a recent invention. Since this name is used TWICE; once in the article TITLE, and again in the first line in bold, that unofficial name has more than enough recognition on the basis of Due Weight already. Soidi's 300 plus posts on this matter, which seem to be his only contribution to Wikipedia over recent months, are just continuing POV-based obfuscation in my opinion. Xandar

"Roman Church" means the Church in the diocese of Rome. But not only, as the sources show. Soidi (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, the reason why Wikipedia does not allow us to interpret original documents is because some people who do not have degrees in certain fields, do not possess the educational ability to read the document and understand exactly what the person who wrote it is saying. It happens that in some Church documents, the Pope can be speaking of one thing but that can be interpreted by an unlearned person to mean another thing. Your personal interpretations of Vatican original documents is invalid precisely because you can not supply a scholar who is interpreting the document to mean what you say it means - WP:OR. You need to rely on a reliable third party source, a scholar, who has writte about the subject matter. Whitehead is the source used by the Church herself in her global television network, a source overseen and approved by the Roman Curia, to explain the Church's name. NancyHeise ^talk 17:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I trust Richardhusr to give me a reasoned reply to my question whether there is any good reason to consider the writings of H.J.Hughes, Professor O'Brien, Monsignor Fenton, Carolyn Osiek to be original documents - "Vatican original documents" (NH) - rather than secondary sources (and also why what LG explicitly says about two earlier primary documents cannot be considered a reliable secondary source in their regard).

But I have no hope that NH will explain why she considers that the interpretations that Hughes, O'Brien, Fenton and Osiek, and for that matter LG, have given of the original documents are not citable. She still refuses to answer the question that has been put to her several times: Do these sources say that the Church is called Roman, or do they not? So I don't suppose she will answer the question: Do you really think that the writings of Hughes, O'Brien, Fenton and Osiek are original Church documents? Soidi (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, you are misinterpreting what your sources discuss - none of your sources are talking about the Church's official name which is what our note is about. Our article already notes the use of "Roman" in the article title and the note. The note explains that the Church uses Catholic Church in its most authoritative and self defining documents and that Roman was rejected as an adjective - in its most authoritative and self defining documents. This is a referenced fact that you are complaining about here. Facts used by EWTN, a SIGNIS member, to explain the Church's official name. None of your sources are used by anyone to explain the Church's official name because that isnt what they are talking about. NancyHeise ^talk 19:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As expected, no reply to the two questions. NH only repeats once more her irrelevant remarks that the sources cited do not speak of "the Church's official name" (Why should they? What they state, doing so expressly, is that the Church is called Roman: they don't need to enter into the irrelevant discussion of a supposed official name to be able to say that.), and that "the note" is about the official name (So what? It isn't in "the note" that the sources are quoted.). She admits that "the note" claims that the adjective "Roman" is rejected - certainly a very good reason for including sourced statements that the adjective "Roman" is not rejected, but is used by the Church! Especially since, in spite of the extreme weakness of the basis of this claim, I have not asked for its removal. Let both views be mentioned, for NPOV balance. As expected, NH gave no reply to the questions: Aren't these sources secondary sources?; and "Don't they say that the Church is called Roman?" Soidi (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Soidi... I agree with you that none of the writings by Hughes, O'Brien, Fenton and Osiek are "official" documents. Thus, they can be quoted as secondary sources. I've only read the documents by Hughes and Fenton. I confess that I had a hard time following Hughes but my sense of it is that he defends the use of the name "Roman Catholic Church" but never claims that it is the official name of the church. My sense of his argument is that he is arguing that "the Roman Catholic Church" is just as valid a name as "the Catholic Church". As for Fenton, if memory serves me correctly, he does use the name "Roman Catholic Church" (once, I think) but the title of the article uses "Catholic Church" and that phrase is used far more often than "Roman Catholic Church". He does NOT argue that "Roman Catholic Church" is the official name of the church. Neither Hughes nor Fenton argue that "the Catholic Church" is NOT the official name of the church. So... I'm at a loss to determine how Hughes or Fenton can be used to support any assertion about the name of the church. (Feel free to cite me passages from any of these documents to enlighten me. I admit to be being less than diligent in finding and reading the relevant sources.)

As for the encyclicals of Pius XII, I think the only assertion that can be made here is that "Roman Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" have been used and are generally considered acceptable for use in official church documents. Note that the fact that these phrases have been used as a descriptive name of the church in official documents does not make them "official" names of the church but simply that they are not categorically rejected as acceptable names of the church. This is a fine distinction, I admit, but this is the distinction Nancy et al seem to be making. The alternative would be to argue that every name applied to the church in an official church document is an "official" name of the church. That would make "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Roman church" an official name of the church and I don't think we want to head down that road.

Now we have Whitehead and New Advent asserting that "the Catholic Church" is the "proper" name of the church. Is the proper name of the church the same as the "official" name of the church? I've puzzled over this question a bit and I think that this is a distinction not worth making but, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I point out that Whitehead uses the phrase "proper name of the church", not "official name of the church". I forget whether New Advent uses "proper" or "official" but both Whitehead and New Advent come down very strongly in favor of "the Catholic Church" against "the Roman Catholic Church".

So, if we accept Whitehead and New Advent as reliable sources asserting that the "proper/official" name of the church is "the Catholic Church", what do we have to look for on "the other side"? Well, it would be great if we could find sources arguing that "the Catholic Church" is NOT the "proper/official" name of the church. I suspect that these sources would most likely be Anglican/Protestant and I seriously doubt that you will find any Catholic source that makes this assertion.

What you are more likely to find among Catholic sources is someone who argues that "the Roman Catholic Church" is just as proper a name for the church as "the Catholic Church". I think that is what Hughes is arguing but I confess that his style of argument against "the other writer" (presumably Propagandist) makes it difficult for me to understand exactly what is being argued other than that Hughes makes a big deal about the order of words.

Your efforts to point at the encyclicals of Pius XII prove (to me, at least) that "the Roman Catholic Church" is, in fact, used in official church documents but asserting that it is any more official than "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Roman church" is OR. You need an article similar to Whitehead or New Advent as a reliable secondary source. I suspect that it will be difficult to find one but that is what I would want to see in order to support your argument.

--Richard (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Richard's is a very good summary of the state of play here. I would go further in the respect that Roman Catholic Church, when it does appear in official documents, is a rarity and exception. Xandar 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard. I knew I could count on you to give an answer. There remains an important point: my edit is not about an official name or the name "Roman Catholic"; it is about the adjective "Roman". All the sources cited say the Church is called "Roman"; not all of them say it is called "Roman Catholic". Fenton gives no personal opinion about the "Roman Catholic" question; what he does say is that the profession of faith of Innocent III calls the Church Roman. So these are citable secondary sources, and they all expressly say that the Church is called Roman. Can we perhaps take this as settled?

If it is thought suitable to discuss anew the "Roman Catholic" question (which I would prefer to leave until much later), that should be done under another heading. What we are discussing here is merely a well-sourced edit that says that the Church as a whole (as well as the local Church in Rome) is called Roman. Similarly, the edit says nothing about whether there is such a thing as "the official name": it only says that the Church is (also) called Roman. The question of the existence of "the official name" also belongs under a different heading.

The Church as a whole is called Roman because it is "governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him". LG links the word "Roman", as used in two highly official documents (a profession of faith that all office-holders in the Church had to take, and a dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith), with this description of the Church, a description that Avery Dulles called a circumlocution for "Roman". But we do not need to go into the reason for the fact that the Church as a whole is called Roman. It is enough to state that the Church is called Roman, as the cited reliable sources show. Soidi (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I personally disagree with those who insist that the phrase "Roman church" refers only to the church of the diocese of Rome. I would suggest that it sometimes refers to that and sometimes to the entire Catholic church as is obvious when Pius XII speaks in Mystici Corpori Christi of "one holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church" he surely means the entire church and not just the church of the diocese of Rome.

However, I go back to my earlier assertions "just because it's true doesn't mean it belongs in the article" and "just because it belongs in the article doesn't mean it belongs in the lead". Why is it important to assert that, once in a blue moon, the church is called "the Roman church" when we have already stated in the lead that the church is called "the Roman Catholic Church". What additional value is provided to the reader by making this point?

--Richard (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it important to state that the Church universal is called Roman? Because the article (concretely "note 1") contains a contrary POV, saying that "Roman" is rejected. What additional value is provided to the reader? NPOV. Soidi (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah... so it seems that you are not so much insisting on inserting "Roman church" as you are concerned about the assertion in note 1 that "'Roman' was rejected". If this is accurate, I am in agreement with you and I had been concerned about this before but hadn't gotten up the motivation to squawk about it.

Truly, it seems that is not at all the case that "'Roman' was rejected" but that the locution "Roman Catholic Church" was rejected in favor of "the Catholic Church" when the church is named in official documents (or, to be precise, the official documents of Vatican I and Vatican II). That is, no one is claiming that the locution "Roman Catholic Church" is anathema. (after all, Pius XII used the phrase well after Vatican I. Fenton also uses it.) Rather, the argument seems to be that the locution "the Catholic Church" is more proper and strongly preferred. So, I would support you in amending note 1 to be more accurate. I think the desire for brevity has wound up giving the reader the wrong impression. I think another solution would be to simply delete the words "'Roman' was rejected". It says both too much and not enough.

--Richard (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would class "roman" in "one holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church", as just one of five adjectives covering the Church, not a name. The descriptor "Roman" is there because one of the aspects of the Catholic Church, apart from Apostolicity, holiness, and oneness is the pontifial link of being the church in communion with the See of Rome. 92.40.67.9 (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think everyone can agree with this. I think the distinction between description/appellation and name is stated either in Whitehead or New Advent or both. No one seems to have a problem with "Roman" as a descriptive term applied to the Catholic Church. The question is entirely around whether "Roman" is part of the name of the church.

--Richard (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What does NH say about Richard's remark that the consensus-consecrated "note 1" must be amended?

The encyclicals of Pius XI and Pius XII that speak of the Church as the "Roman Catholic Church" are official documents. (Would anyone say that Humanae vitae was not an official document?) Soidi (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that remains a stumbling block, eh? I think the argument of the consensus is that the Vatican I and Vatican II documents were deliberately sanitized to remove any reference to the "Roman Catholic Church" in favor of "the Catholic Church". The encyclicals of Pius XI and Pius XII were not equally sanitized. Why? This is pure speculation but I would guess that the Roman Curia who vetted the encyclicals were not as caught up in the name debate as the bishops who prepared the Vatican I and Vatican II documents. Are those two encyclicals the only ones in recent history that use the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" and "Roman Church"?

At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that there are several names used to refer to the church in official documents. The question is whether there is an official and proper name for the church. Whitehead and New Advent argue that there is and that it is "the Catholic Church". Can you find anybody who argues against this position? (other than yourself because you don't count unless you are an established expert in this field in which case you can offer a citation to your own work)

--Richard (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not an expert in the field, no more than Whitehead, Propagandist and the like! And I have not published anything on the subject, so that, unlike them, I cannot be quoted.

Are there more encyclicals (apart from one by Pius XI and another by Pius XII) that have used the three words "Roman Catholic Church" with no other intervening adjectives? I think not. John Paul II did use the same three words, with nothing added, in his weekly Wednesday catechesis; I would call that official also, but not at an encyclical's level of solemnity. Encyclicals other than these two do speak of the Church, the whole Church, as Roman, or as Roman and Catholic with other adjectives interleaved between these two. NH and X would rule them out as evidence that the Church officially calls itself Roman Catholic. Their view may perhaps be unjustified, but you know how they are.

Yes there are published sources that say "Roman Catholic" is an official name. I did cite two of them when I was arguing that there are more views than one on the official name question. I am not arguing about that question now: I have long left it behind. Here I am only answering your question. I will therefore not repeat here my citation of those sources. Neither of them was published on the website of an association that has paid its subscription to an international association whose president, being a member of a Pontifical Council, takes part in a meeting of that Council almost every year. (The rule for such meetings is that they are to be held "as far as possible once a year", and this particular Council seems perhaps to have skipped one or two recent years.) NH holds that it is forbidden even to mention in the Wikipedia article any view that disagrees with one that she describes as having this roundabout and tenuous connection with the Roman Curia. Soidi (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Richard, if he wants to pursue the question of the existence of any single official name, to do so under a different heading. If I understand him correctly, he agrees that the sources cited in my edit are citable sources for Wikipedia and that they do say expressly that the Church is called Roman. Does anyone disagree with these two points? Soidi (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait... I said that the church is called "Roman" in the same way that it is called "holy", "catholic" and "apostolic". These are descriptive appellations rather than names and thus I do not agree that the church is named "the Roman church". Moreover, I do not agree that discussion of these appellations belongs in the first sentence of the lead in the style of your earlier edit which was reverted out as "still under discussion". I wouldn't mind seeing this topic discussed somewhere in the lead but I think you need to build consensus among other editors before inserting any mention of this in the lead. --Richard (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Did I say that the Church is "named" the Roman Church? But it is called the Roman Church, and is so called in official documents. (I think I used "called" as a translation of Latin "dicitur" in the quotation that says that in two documents about the Catholic faith the Church "dicitur ... Romana Ecclesia".) Can we leave the question of official name or names for another discussion, and agree that the sources mentioned are citable in Wikipedia and do say that "the Church is called Roman"? It was on the grounds of Original Research that the edit that says this was reversed. If we can settle that question, we can at last close this section (note the heading), and go on to the question whether there are other grounds for not mentioning in the lead that the Church is called Roman. NH repeatedly avoided answering the question whether the sources are citable and say what they say. Surely you won't do the same? Soidi (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, I stopped discussing this issue when it became apparent that no one agrees with your positions to the point of making any changes in the article NancyHeise ^talk 18:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's one person who has at least ceased to deny that the sources in question are citable and expressly say that the Church is called Roman. Soidi (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The question remains whether this information of what the Church calls itself in official documents is worth putting in the article (I am on the fence on this one, leaning against including it) and whether it is worth putting in the lead as you did a week or so ago. I am opposed to putting it in the lead because it adds information that is relatively unimportant and would require quite a bit of explanation to make clear to the reader what point is being made. If this information about the church calling itself the "Roman church" belongs anywhere, it belongs in a separate section on "Names of the Church" or in a completely separate article called Names of the Catholic Church. --Richard (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we agree that it is not original research to say that the Church is called Roman? If so, we can close this section, and I (or you) can open another on the legitimacy of including this information. Soidi (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that is unnecessary since all of the over 18 editors who have considered your argument agreed that it does not belong in the article. NancyHeise ^talk 00:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)