Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Whitehead

The current text of Note 1 reads:

The Greek word "catholic" means "universal" and was first used to describe the Church by Ignatius in the late first, early second century.[1][2] Some different Christian denominations not in communion with The Catholic Church describe themselves as "catholic," (see Catholicism), but in common usage it refers to the body also known as Roman Catholic Church and its members.[2] The Church herself in her official documents since the first Council of Nicea in 325 and including the documents of the most recent ecumenical councils, Vatican I and Vatican II, uses the name "Catholic Church".[3][4] According to Kenneth Whitehead, in his book One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic which was used by Catholic media to explain the Church's name to worldwide viewers, "The term 'Roman Catholic' is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, confined largely to the English language."[3] The term is used by the ecumenical organization ARCIC. Originally, it was a translation of Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, apparently first used in place of the earlier Roman, Romanist, or Romish, which were considered derogatory.[5] Within the Church, the term refers to the Diocese of Rome or to the Roman Rite (Latin Rite) which excludes parts of the worldwide Catholic Church that use other rites (see Eastern Catholic Churches).[3]

I dislike the inclusion of the Whitehead quote because it is at the crux of the current debate. Can we agree to remove the following text:

According to Kenneth Whitehead, in his book One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic which was used by Catholic media to explain the Church's name to worldwide viewers, "The term 'Roman Catholic' is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, confined largely to the English language."[3] The term is used by the ecumenical organization ARCIC. Originally, it was a translation of Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, apparently first used in place of the earlier Roman, Romanist, or Romish, which were considered derogatory.[5] Within the Church, the term refers to the Diocese of Rome or to the Roman Rite (Latin Rite) which excludes parts of the worldwide Catholic Church that use other rites (see Eastern Catholic Churches).[3]

This would leave Note 1 as reading just...

The Greek word "catholic" means "universal" and was first used to describe the Church by Ignatius in the late first, early second century.[1][2] Some different Christian denominations not in communion with The Catholic Church describe themselves as "catholic," (see Catholicism), but in common usage it refers to the body also known as Roman Catholic Church and its members.[2] The Church herself in her official documents since the first Council of Nicea in 325 and including the documents of the most recent ecumenical councils, Vatican I and Vatican II, uses the name "Catholic Church".[3][4]

I think the faction "other than Xandar/Nancy" would have a lot less heartburn if the Whitehead quote were removed from Note 1. We could move it to the footnotes but I think it is preferable to cast Whitehead's piece as an opinion piece rather than as indisputable fact. Putting the quote in Note 1 tends to cast it as Wikipedia's judgment that Whitehead is correct rather than an opinion. Whitehead's writing is not an "official" document of the church. It claims to describe the church's official stance but is not guaranteed to be correct, the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur notwithstanding.

We might do well to review what Nihil obstat and Imprimatur mean. Nihil obstat is Latin for "nothing stands in the way". It means that nothing in the work is clearly against church doctrine. It does NOT mean that the work is correct. Neither do Imprimi potest or Imprimatur.

From the Wikipedia article on Imprimatur

Sometimes the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are followed by the following text:

"The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed."

While at first glance this statement might seem contradictory, it indicates the purpose of the imprimatur: theologians and other writers are free to discuss various theories, ideas, approaches, or positions on theological topics - even if the bishop does not agree with the author's positions - provided they do not actually harm Catholic faith or morals. Within Catholic doctrine, therefore, a breadth of possible opinions may be freely discussed.

Thus, we should not use the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur to argue that Whitehead is correct, simply that he is not obviously outside of Catholic doctrine.

--Richard (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing specifically wrong or misleading about the proposed shotened note, however it does continue the "chipping away" process with references that has already got rid of "Roman Catholic was rejected." Now it is proposed to remove Whitehead altogether, as well as information on the fairly recent origin of the term "Roman Catholic". I think some of this matter is informative to readers. Is it essential? I'm not sure. But let's see if this proposal provides real prospect of a resolution of these disputes. Xandar 22:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xandar, I'm not so much arguing to remove Whitehead as a source as I am arguing to remove the Whitehead quote from Note 1. I would be OK if instead of using the Whitehead quote, Note 1 said something like "Many within the church argue that the proper name for the church is 'the Catholic Church' and express a strong dislike for the name 'the Roman Catholic Church' (cite Whitehead, McClintock et al). This notwithstanding, the name "Roman Catholic Church" is used on occasion in official documents and by some parishes and dioceses in the United States."

My proposal would leave the lead saying "officially known as" or "officially called...".

I think my proposed formulation for the lead and the associated Note 1 captures the true state of affairs in a way that everyone can agree on. Instead of taking what Whitehead says and asserting it as TRUTH, we simply say that many within the church argue this way and we also note that "Roman Catholic Church" is still in use by Catholics in the U.S. notwithstanding Whitehead's position.

PERSONAL NOTE: I personally agree with Whitehead that the proper name of the church is "the Catholic Church". I just think some elements of his argument are "over the top" and, in some cases, just plain wrong. I suspect that most of the currently involved editors opposing the current article text also feel this way. We are not opposing the assertion about the proper name of the church. We are opposing "Roman was rejected" when phrased in exactly that way.

--Richard (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on above suggestions:

• 1)We eliminated the exact phrase "Roman was rejected" and are now using Whitehead's exact words in quotation marks. We are also now telling reader how the Whitehead source is used (by Catholic media) so it can be considered one POV, if there are other sources who say the church name is something else we can include that too, however, I have not seen a referenceable source that says something different than what we have already included.
• 2)We do not have a reference for "many within the church argue for ...." as someone has proposed above.
• 3)We also don't have a ref that says "Roman Catholic Church is used on occasion....". I have Annuario Pontificio, none of the 2700 sees uses the term Roman Catholic in their official name. If someone wants to propose a ref for these sentences, I am open to insertion of an opposing POV. The fact that Roman Catholic Church is used as an A/K/A is already in the note.
• 4)It is wise to consider that Whitehead is the only source used by any Catholic media to explain the Church's name, also it is notable that it is used by the largest Catholic media network in the world that reaches most of the world. EWTN is a global network that spans the globe in five languages. Should we not be placing a healthy amount of trust in this source? Why the problem with Whitehead? It think it is because some people dislike what he says but that does not erase the fact that he is the source used to explain the name. It is also notable that he is not an opinion piece, but a scholarly book excerpt used on the Catholic Answers program. Per this Reuters article [1] "EWTN, the world's largest religious media network, will provide comprehensive coverage of Pope Benedict's visit for XM's 9 million subscribers." NancyHeise ^talk 01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand why anyone would want to use Whitehead as a "reliable" source as he quite patently isn't one. His arguments are clearly substandard and flawed in various ways - as has been already been more than adequately demonstrated by various editors. Whitehead is not a "scholarly book" (unless standards of scholarship have slipped to an all-time low) and he is unworthy of serious consideration for inclusion in this article. And why anyone would want to claim EWTN as a source of authority on anything simply beggars belief. Afterwriting (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So you are opposed to using the largest Catholic media outlet in the world, available in 140 countries and territories [2], one that is a member of SIGNIS [3], one that is used by XM Radio as a Catholic media source for Catholic news[4]? That reasoning violates WP:RS. And even if EWTN were considered a POV source, WP:NPOV would require us to include it if the item covered were controversial, which it isnt, except on this page of Wikipedia. NancyHeise ^talk 03:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose Afterwriting is opposed to using Whitehead's view as his view. Afterwriting is correct in opposing the presentation of Whitehead's view as undisputed fact. It is a strange idea that attaches special authority to a view that someone puts it on the EWTN website (just because EWTN is a member of SIGNIS and SIGNIS is a recognized international association of the faithful). Does the view of a Georgetown University professor become specially authoritative just because that university is a member - as mentioned by Soidi above - of ICFU (the International Federation of Catholic Universities), which also is a recognized international association of the faithful? Defteri (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the source for "officially known as the Catholic Church"?

Yes, I know the section title is provocative but Nancy keeps insisting on the idea that we have sources for everything. Well then, what is the source for "officially known as the Catholic Church"? Do we have a source that says "officially known as the Catholic Church" explicitly? I don't think so. Whitehead says "the proper name is..." "proper" is not the same as "official" (close but not quite).

Now, I don't make this argument to suggest that "the Catholic Church" is not the official name of the church (although some others might make that argument). I am suggesting that not everything in this article is literally sourced but there are some chains of logic required to support some of the linkages from article text to source.

Secondly, Nancy keeps arguing as if we are trying to say that "Roman Catholic Church" is an official name of the church. This is not what we are arguing. We are arguing that the church occasionally uses "Roman Catholic Church" in official documents to refer to the worldwide church (NOT the Diocese of Rome as Whitehead, Xandar and others argue).

Thirdly, Nancy argues as if we are trying to say that some parishes and dioceses in the United States are have "Roman Catholic" in their official names. We are NOT arguing this. We are simply stating that some parishes and dioceses in the United States use the name "Roman Catholic" to refer to themselves and thus, Whitehead's argument notwithstanding, they appear to have rejected the notion that "Roman Catholic" is improper (cf. the bishops standing to affirm that "Roman Catholic Church" is a proper name of the church - we do have a source for this incident, right?).

Finally, I really think it worthwhile to re-read what the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about this. Just because it is a century old doesn't mean that it is unreliable when it discusses the 2000 year history of the church.

Under the heading "Roman Catholic", the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia says:

A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled "Roman Catholics" as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species. It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. As the erroneousness of this point of view has been sufficiently explained in the articles CHURCH and CATHOLIC, it is only needful here to consider the history of the composite term with which we are now concerned.

In the "Oxford English Dictionary", the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is given under the heading "Roman Catholic".

The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)

Please note this last sentence in the above quotation...

After that date (1618-1624), it (i.e. "Roman Catholic") was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed.

The Catholic Encyclopedia then goes on to cite New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766

Why can we not put this into Note 1? There may be a challenge from some editors as to whether the name "Roman Catholic" arose "in the early years of the seventeenth century" as CE asserts or at an earlier time but we can require those editors to provide sources to support any such challenge.

What I am interested in is the point made in the last sentence... "generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation". If we include this in the article and provide the source, we can leave it to the reader to accept the more contemporary text provided by Whitehead over the perhaps outdated information provided by the Catholic Encyclopedia. This information is sourced even if you don't like the position espoused by the source or the age of the source.

I will comment, as an aside, that if as the Catholic Encyclopedia argues, 'Roman Catholic' "has long been the recognized legal and official designation", when betwen 1912 and 2009 did 'Catholic" become the recognized legal and official designation? Couldn't have been Vatican I; that was in 1868. Surely, the authors of the CE article would have known if Vatican I changed the "the recognized legal and official designation" of the church.

And, as I've argued before, the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I would not have had to campaign for "Catholic Church" if the Theological Commission had not proposed text that used "Roman Catholic Church". That suggests that "Roman Catholic Church" was in standard usage and not rejected in favor of "Catholic Church" until the English-speaking bishops launched their campaign. And there's that bit about the bishops standing to affirm "Roman Catholic Church" as a proper name of the church.

I really think you have to put the 1912 CE article and Whitehead's book/article side-by-side and let the reader decide. It is not our job to determine what the WP:TRUTH is.

--69.236.185.246 (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC) --Richard (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to sources that say "official name" in so many words...

I previously also quoted Patrick Madrid here, which says

• • The formal or official name for the church established by Christ is the Catholic Church. ... Roman catholic is actually a term imposed on Catholics from the outside, stemming mainly from Angilcan efforts in past centuries to portray themselves as also truly Catholic,"
• American Catholic Social Teaching here,

I think it is also pretty clear from the Infallible Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, which says:

• • 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, 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,

This passage is twice quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Xandar 11:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Richard's Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912 excerpts:

What you are quoting in part seems to be the Catholic Encyclopedia quoting the Oxford English Dictionary. So the Catholic Encyclopedia, clearly states that Roman Catholic is an invented term of those "unwilling to recognise the claims of the One True church", and that the point of view giving rise to the term is "erroneous". Only then does it quote the following phrase from a Victorian Oxford Dictionary... "After that date (1618-1624), it (i.e. "Roman Catholic") was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed." So that is NOT the opinion of the Catholic Encyclopedia, but of the Oxford Dictionary.

The terms "non-controversial" and "recognized legal and official designation", are therefore A) OED editor opinion, and B) refer to legal and official designation in the UNITED KINGDOM, not the Catholic Church! We have said earlier that in the UK and some other Countries the Catholic Church was forced to operate under then name "Roman Catholic Church" by the Government in the Victorian period and later. Therefore Richard's question "...when betwen 1912 and 2009 did 'Catholic" become the recognized legal and official designation?" is based on a misapprehension. Since the OED refers to British Government legal and official designation, not that of the world Catholic Church.

As for Vatican 1, the initial text of documents is not proposed by the Bishops but by lesser aides etc. When the words "Roman Catholic" appeared before the Bishops, they were pretty quickly stepped on. Xandar 12:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Infallible Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium does not say that the official name of the Church is "Catholic Church". It says nothing whatever about what the Church is called or should be called in the words that Xandar yet again quoted, yet again omitting the words of the Council that do say something about what the Church is called. Precisely there, in a footnote, it says that the Church is called (dicitur in Latin) the Holy Roman Church or the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church, citing for the first the Profession of Faith of Trent, for the second the First Vatican Council. That is what the Infallible Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium says the Church is called. It does not say that the Church is called the Catholic Church.

As for Vatican I, when someone proposed that the word "Roman" be omitted, that proposal was pretty quickly and decisively stepped on, and the word was kept in the final version. Only after much discussion, and so by no means quickly, was it agreed to change the order of the words, but keeping both "Roman" and "Catholic", not just one of them.

There are sources (of disputed quality) that say "Catholic Church" is the official name. There are sources also (again of disputed quality) that say "Roman Catholic Church" is the official name. But certain people who act as if they own the article prevent any mention being made of the existence of the latter sources. Defteri (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is quite obvious to anybody what Lumen Gentium says. The passage I quoted is again re-quoted twice in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to confirm its centrality with regard to the name. The so-called "sources" that say the church is officially called the Roman Catholic Church include one that is unobtainable and one American Lutheran Magazine. Since it is quite obvious that the Church is NOT called the Roman Catholic Church as its official name or in mainstream usage, those "sources" are more than suspect. Compare this with sources cited by the Church itself. At vatican 1 the First decision was to kick out "Roman Catholic", the second decision was to retain Roman in the traditional formulation, "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church". However the latter is not used as the actual name of the Church. Xandar 16:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Xandar, you are simply wrong. The first thing voted on with regard to the phrase in Dei Filius was the proposal to eliminate "Roman". It was immediately and overwhelming rejected by a vote for which standing up (literally) for it or against it brought a quite obvious result, without need for a voice vote, as was required for the second proposal, which was to insert a comma between "Roman" and "Catholic". That has been made clear above. Secondly, "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" was not a "traditional formulation". I know of no earlier instance of it. However, tt was, as you ought to know, repeated by the Second Vatican Council. It is indeed quite obvious what Lumen Gentium says, and what it does not say. It says the Church "is called the Holy (Catholic Apostolic) Roman Church". It does not say the Church "is called the Catholic Church". Still less does it say: "The official name of the Church is the Catholic Church". Defteri (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

At Vatican I, the first decision was to retain the word "Roman". The second decision was to not separate "Roman" and "Catholic" with a comma or "and" - with a bishop of the Church and relator of the document arguing in front of the other bishops at an ecumenical council that "Roman Catholic Church" is a proper name of the church. The third decision, in light of issues raised by the English-speaking bishops, was to avoid, in the document, a sequence of words which would appear to encourage the branch theory. Nevertheless, "Roman Catholic Church" is used in at least one encyclical of Pius XII. Here's an interesting observation from the the 1889 AER, p. 252:

It is true that the name "Roman," unlike that of Catholic, appears at first as having been applied to the Church by her enemies, much as "Papistical," "Romish," and "Roman" (in a wrong sense) are applied to her now ; but the Catholics did not repudiate it, and, like the epithet "Homousians" given by the Arians to the orthodox, it is in truth an unwitting indication of the real whereabouts of the truth. The propagators of error, blinded by their own passionate hatred of the Bride of Christ, fix upon that point of her teaching which is directly opposed to their heresy, and endeavor to turn it into a reproach, with the inevitable result that the truth stands out the more clearly for the attacks made upon it. No more than "Catholic " can the honorable title " Roman " be in any sense a mere party designation, such as Marcionite or Arian or Donatist, Protestant Anglican or Greek " Orthodox " so-called.

Lumen Gentium does not say "official name". This so-called "official name" is a huge side-track by contemporary apologists like Whitehead. If you look at academic works on theology - the ones written by people with doctorates in canon law and sacred theology, and used as textbooks in seminaries - you will find them treating of the "notes" of the church (One, Holy, etc.). Some add a section on "Roman" as a pseudo-note related to Unity. Some go into detail defending various "proper names". But do they discuss a legal name? (That's what "official name" implies.) The one's I've checked don't seem to. This naming thing doesn't seem to be a significant part of academic discourse on the Church. We should get away from this trap and instead have a note explaining why "Roman Catholic Church", while occasionally used by the church, is mis-used by non-Catholics to mean something the Church doesn't mean or agree with. Thus we have the statement of Cardinal Vaughan:

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.

So, is a cardinal a reliable enough source to indicate a different approach to the "RCC vs CC" debate? Gimmetrow 17:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The source does explain that Cardinal Vaughan made his statement after being forced to use the term "Roman Catholic Church" in relations with the UK Government. Xandar 11:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, you bring up the passage in Lumen Gentium. SENSE OF THE WORDS "KINGDOM OF GOD", a document by Fr. Most, quoting Cardinal Avery Dulles, and THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH, VATICAN II, ‘LUMEN GENTIUM’, a document by the Cardinal prefect of the CDF, both discuss that passage from Lumen Gentium. Both documents use the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" while discussing that passage. Both documents are hosted by EWTN, if that matters to anybody. Gimmetrow 17:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

New proposal

Xandar, thank you for the Patrick Madrid cite. That resolves for me the question of source for "official name". I confess that I haven't read every word that has been written on this Talk Page so I missed that source when it was provided earlier.

Gimmetrow, thank you for the Cardinal Vaughan quote, that is also very helpful.

Moving back to "Roman was rejected" and "Roman Catholic" as a proper name of the church, why can't we put the following into Note 1

1. "Catholic Church" is the official name of the church (cite Patrick Madrid) - if anybody disputes Madrid's assertion, let him provide a source
2. describe the events of Vatican I (proposal of the Theological Commission and the ensuing debate/votes of the bishops)
3. thus it was decided not to use "Roman Catholic" but "Roman" was not rejected per se (this need not be stated at all but if it is included, it must be made very clear)
4. include the opinion that the name "Roman Catholic" is a name of English origins that arose in the 17th century for sectarian reasons (we have many sources for this)
5. if any one can provide a secondary source for the use of "Roman Catholic" prior to the 16th or 17th century, please do so
6. explain that there are two senses for the name "Roman Catholic", one acceptable to Catholics and one unacceptable to Catholics (cite Cardinal Vaughan)
7. include the opinion that "Roman Catholic" is not a proper name of the church (cite Whitehead)
8. include the opinion that "Roman Catholic" is a proper name of the church (cite Cardinal Vaughan)(cite the assertion made by one of the bishops at Vatican I)
9. include the fact that although the Annuario Pontificio never uses "Roman Catholic", in daily practice, many parishes and dioceses in the United States use "Roman Catholic" to refer to themselves and official treaties between the worldwide church and other countries refer to the church as "Roman Catholic". (cite Annuario Pontificio, cite any of numerous websites of U.S. parishes and dioceses)

I hope this covers all the points that have been raised. Can we start converging on a compromise?

--Richard (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not overstate what Vaughan says. He's not talking about "proper name" or whatever. He explained that there are two very different senses to "Roman Catholic" - one which the church accepts, and one which it doesn't. Add to that the historical origin of the sense which is not accepted, and I think that would cover the entire issue. Gimmetrow 17:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gimmetrow, I have amended the above proposal accordingly. --Richard (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally think adding the section on what different parishes and dioceses in the United States call themself is getting to picky and will extend the article for no reason. The name of a particular parish or diocese doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. Marauder40 (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason that I propose making that point is to establish that many Catholics (both lay and clergy) in the United States and other countries (e.g. Hispanic countries) are either unaware of or unwilling to accept the assertion that "Roman Catholic" is an improper appellation for their church. --Richard (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that asserting that is OR. You don't know why a particular parish or diocese called itself what it did. We are trying to get to the name of the entire church, not a particular parish. A church may call itself St. whatever Roman Catholic Church to differentiate themselves from the nearby St. whatever Byzantine Catholic church, both of which are Catholic churches. What a local church calls itself has no bearing on the name of the overall church. Marauder40 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not wedded to having this particular point in the final compromise text but let me try this one more time. My rationale may be OR but I am not proposing to put the rationale in the article. I am simply suggesting that the article state the indisputable fact that some parishes and dioceses use the name "Roman Catholic" without having the article speculate as to why this is so. My goal is to help the reader close the apparent discrepancy between Whitehead arguing that "Roman Catholic" is not a proper name for the church while seeing "Roman Catholic" all over the place in the U.S. including in RCC parishes and dioceses. We are unable, at this time, to provide a source that closes the gap authoritatively so we have to limit ourselves to pointing out the discrepancy and letting the reader draw his/her own conclusions. --Richard (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would walk carefully when it comes to individual parishes or individuals. For the Church there is only one position that counts and that is of the Holy See. It is similar to trying to explain what individual Christians believe and what churches teach. The first is impossible to quantify while the second stands on firm ground. Yes, RCC is used by groups, but the Church seems to use it today for a given context. Does that make sense? --^StormRider 21:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is not about what individual Catholics (lay or clergy) BELIEVE but what the parishes and dioceses DO. You are right that we cannot establish or quantify what individuals believe but we can establish (and maybe quantify) what they do. Regardless of what they believe, they DO use the name "Roman Catholic" (just Google "Roman Catholic diocese" for proof). What the reader makes of this fact is up to him/her. We cannot go further without a reliable source. --Richard (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) What I recommended was to use care and nothing else. Further, a parish, a diocese, etc. does not speak for the Catholic Church. It does not matter what a priest does or says, or what a bishop does or says. It does matter what the Pope does and says and what the Magisterium does and says because they lead the Church in doctrine. I see a clear distinction between the two different groups. The first group speaks for themselves and the second group speaks for the Church. As a recommendation there is no need for a resource. I still recommend a degree of care how things are worded that is all. We are on the same side and I have not contradicted you or disagreed with you. When we are talking about the Church the primary issue of value is what the Church says. Everything else is secondary. Cosi capite, il mio amico?--^StormRider 22:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting proposal, which could be fruitful, although a long note. I think that the fact that the Church uses Catholic Church in all its principal documents and pronouncements needs to be set out. Point 9 needs care. Roman Catholic tends to be used in local names as a hangover from when it was enforced. As far as treaties go, the 1912 source may have said this (I don't know how accurately), but modern treaties certainly use the name: "Catholic Church", see Italy 1984, Spain 1979, Croatia 1996 Xandar 01:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to let point #9 go if it is standing in the way of moving towards a consensus. I will point out, however, that AFAIK "Roman Catholic" was never "enforced" in the United States although there was a strong pro-Protestant anti-Catholic bias for most of the ensuing two centuries. Is it a "hangover" from the British? Well, we won our independence from them in the 1770s but they did continue to influence the U.S. for several decades afterwards. One last point... if Roman Catholic is a "negative", why don't American Catholics react negatively to it? --Richard (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Lots of American Catholics do react negatively to it, me included. But for the most part, Catholics in America are of the Latin (or Roman) rite, and would then not take offense to being called Roman Catholic, consider the "Roman" an innocent descriptor of the rite that they are in.Farsight001 (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

To start with the last point, you should certainly omit the statement that the Annuario Pontificio never uses "Roman Catholic". This doesn't correspond to what NancyHeise said: she only said that none of the bishops conferences listed use "Roman Catholic" in their name. The great majority of them don't even use "Catholic". The first in alphabetical order are: Conférence Episcopale Régionale du Nord de l'Afrique, Konferenca Ipeshkvnore e Shqipërise (= Episcopal Conference of Albania), Conferência Episcopal de Angola e São Tomé, Antilles Episcopal Conference, Conferencia Episcopal Argentina. Only after these do you get the first with the word "Catholic": Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, followed immediately by others that do not have "Catholic".

Point 4 is right to speak of an "opinion". The opinion contradicts (or is contradicted by) the Catholic Encyclopedia article, which says that "Ecclesia Catholica Romana" and "Église catholique romaine" were in common use in Latin and in Romance languages before appearing in English. But the same holds for Point 1, which is fine in the form "Catholic writers say ...", but not stated as a fact. As Gimmetrow has pointed out, no record of any decision by the Church to adopt a single name as official has been referred to by those writers (unless they are interpreted as making the claim with regard to the First Vatican Council, in which case the claim would be evidently false). Two sources (written by non-Catholics) have actually been cited which say that "Roman Catholic Church" is the official name. There is no need to mention this view on what precisely is the official name, but the existence of these sources shows that the Catholic writers' claim is disputed, as well as lacking any documentary support other than the fact that "Catholic Church" is frequently (but not exclusively) used in official documents of the Church.

There is no doubt that the Church considers itself both Roman and Catholic. There are documents of Popes and Councils and the Roman Curia that use both adjectives. The fact that the Church calls itself both Roman and Catholic is stated by the already cited Michael J. Walsh, by Cardinal Avery Dulles, and doubtless by others. The article cannot continue to teach that the Church rejects the adjective "Roman", just because Whitehead says so. So Richarhshusr's proposal deserves every consideration. Defteri (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The Catholic Encyclopedia article here, does not say that the term Roman Catholic was in common use in European languages before Britain. What it does say is this: "A study of these and other early examples in their context shows plainly enough that the qualification "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" was introduced by Protestant divines who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic... On the other hand the evidence seems to show that the Catholics of the reign of Elizabeth and James I were by no means willing to admit any other designation for themselves than the unqualified name Catholic." It also states that in 1901 the British Government "intimated to the cardinal that the only permissible style would be "the Roman Catholic Archbishop and Bishops in England". Even the form "the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Catholic and Roman Church in England" was not approved." The final paragraph of the article states that the use of the term "Roman" to argue that there are many different Catholic Churches, "..imposes upon Catholics the necessity of making no compromise in the matter of their own name. The loyal adherents of the Holy See did not begin in the sixteenth century to call themselves "Catholics" for controversial purposes. It is the traditional name handed down to us continuously from the time of St. Augustine." Xandar 11:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"We do find that Catholics not unfrequently use the inverted form of the name 'Roman Catholic' and speak of the 'Catholic Roman faith' or religion. An early example is to be found in a little controversial tract of 1575 called 'a Notable Discourse' where we read for example that the heretics of old 'preached that the Pope was Antichriste, shewing themselves verye eloquent in detracting and rayling against the Catholique Romane Church' (p. 64). But this was simply a translation of the phraseology common both in Latin and in the Romance languages 'Ecclesia Catholica Romana', or in French 'l'Eglise catholique romaine'."

So the article does say that even before 1575, the earliest date that the article gives for the use of the term in English, "Ecclesia Catholica Romana" and "Église catholique romaine" were already in common use both in Latin and in the Romance languages, i.e. the group of languages that includes French, Italian and Spanish. Perhaps you skipped that part. (The 1575 use was by a Catholic; the examples that the article gives of its use by Anglicans are later than 1575.) Defteri (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read Richards proposal and everyone's comments. I think it is an interesting proposal that is well done and I appreciate his efforts. I have some comments:

• This page is supposed to be short, written in summary style. Richard's proposal could be fully addressed on a page that discusses the name of the church but I think it is too much detail for this page. What matters to this page is not how the church came to the official name - we don't need to go into the discussions of the bishops or the opinion of one bishop who pushed for "Roman Catholic" - what we want is the "final decision" - which was to use Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic Church.
• All other aspects of Richard's proposal are already in the note but can be reworded if someone wishes to do so. However, I agree with StormRider that it is not very useful and probably OR to include Richard's last suggestion about what individual parishes use in their names on websites. Please understand that, as the referenced note explains, the term Roman Catholic, within the Church means "Roman Rite" as opposed to other rites like "Chaldean Rite". There are different Catholic Church rites that exist in the US and all over the world. Perhaps the reasoning behind one parish's use of Roman Catholic Church is to distinguish itself from the Chaldean Rite Catholic Church down the street. NancyHeise ^talk 18:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, NancyHeise, if your reference to "the opinion of one bishop who pushed for 'Roman Catholic'" concerns the First Vatican Council, you have it the wrong way round: one bishop pushed against "Roman Catholic", proposing that the word "Roman" be omitted, but his proposal was soundly defeated. Your idea that "Roman Catholic Church" means "using the Roman Rite" is similar: the Roman Rite is a liturgical rite, not used, for instance, in Milan, and the Popes use "Roman Catholic Church" always to mean the Church outside of which there is no salvation, the Church that is the Mystical Body of Christ ... You surely don't believe that the members of the Maronite Church and the other Eastern Catholic Churches are not part of the Mystical Body of Christ or that they are not part of the Church outside of which there is not salvation. But can we perhaps agree on Richard's proposal? The length need not be an obstacle. It deserves to be dealt with in a section of its own, not just in a footnote. Defteri (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to Nancy... she was probably quoting from one of the items in my proposal which does suggest that it is only one bishop who was pushing for "Roman Catholic". I got that part wrong. I think the way it went was that one bishop argued against "Roman Catholic" and the vast majority of bishops stayed sitting (signifying disapproval). Defteri can correct me if I still have it wrong.

I agree with Nancy that the full explanation belongs in an article unto itself but the key here is that the text of this article has to get the basics right if only in summary form. I don't think that we need to go into all the details outlined in my proposal as long as the article does not suggest that "Roman Catholic" was "rejected" or that it is an improper name for the church. This, IMO, means that we should not include the part of the Whitehead quotation that asserts this. IMO, Whitehead crosses over from statement of fact into polemic at that point. I have no problem presenting Whitehead's opinion that "the Catholic Church" is the proper name of the church (citing Whitehead without quotation) or even Patrick Madrid's assertion that "the Catholic Church" is the official name of the church.(Other editors may have different opinions about this.) I think editors would be hard put to find sources that explicitly challenge Whitehead or Madrid on those assertions (i.e. secondary sources that contradict Whitehead and Madrid, NOT primary sources which use other names or chains of logic which amount to OR).

However, if we include any of the polemic against "Roman Catholic" as a proper name of the church, then I feel we really must bring in the rest of the points in my proposal to avoid giving undue weight to those arguments.

--Richard (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not understanding where the two of you are finding any source that says the Bishops of Vatican I "stayed sitting signifying disapproval" can you please point me to that reference with a link here? I do see where Whitehead and Xandars source say the opposite, that agreement was reached by the bishops to use the name Catholic Church after considering whether or not to include Roman as a prefix. Richard, do you have a source that says Roman Catholic is an official name of the church that has been officially accepted by the Catholic Church as its official name? I think we have several sources now that say the opposite. Your proposal did not suggest what you have suggested here and I disagree with this new twist because there are no references to support it. NancyHeise ^talk 21:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that "Roman Catholic" was rejected by Vatican I - whatever the order of procedings. Whether it was rejected first, or rejected later after some afterthought, the name was rejected, and reasons given for that rejection. It is also not normatively used by the worldwide church, or in the documents of Vatican II. I am happy for the note to add that RCC has some rare, local and ecumenical use, and that it has been preferred by some governments, but it has to be clear that RCC is not a term normatively used by the world Church and there is now a great deal of evidence of the reasons why this is so. To argue, as some do, that a name can only be regarded as the official or proper name of a body if no other name ever appears in documents connected with that organisation would mean that no organisation on the planet would be able to declare a proper or official name! Xandar 23:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet organizations do it ("declare a proper and official name") all the time. It's just that the Catholic Church does not seem to have seen fit to do so. That said, we're not saying that "Catholic Church" is not the proper and official name. We're saying that "Roman Catholic" is considered by some Catholics to be a proper name of the Church (cf. the votes at Vatican I). "Roman" was definitely not rejected. "Roman Catholic" in precisely that order was rejected in favor of just plain "Catholic". And yet, English-speaking and Spanish-speaking Catholics (at least) use the phrase "Roman Catholic" quite frequently. What I'm looking to do is to document that fact and I wouldn't feel so strongly about it were it not for the fact that the lead sentence starts by saying "Roman Catholic Church". All I want to do is explain to the reader why this church has two names and what the relationship is between the two. To say "Roman and/or Roman Catholic was rejected" says both too little and too much.

It's also why I objected earlier when Karanacs changed the lead sentence to read "known as the Catholic Church". My son's name is Richard... Jr. and he is sometimes known as Ricky. His legal name is Richard and he is "known as Ricky". I would prefer the lead sentence to read "officially calls itself the Catholic Church" or "is officially called" rather than "is known as".

If anything, the church is officially called the Catholic Church and is known as the Roman Catholic Church in English-speaking countries.

--Richard (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Stayed sitting signifying disapproval" is not quite accurate. A vote was taken on the proposal to omit the word "Roman". Those in favour were asked to stand up. Very few did. Those against were then asked to stand up. Almost all did. (Those, if any, who stood up for neither vote could be reckoned as having abstained.) The result was clear. This is recounted in Theodorus Granderath. Constitutiones Dogmaticae Sancrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani where the author, to explain the systems of voting used, gave that as an example of how standing up sometimes gave a clear result, but at other times did not. As an example of how it sometimes did not give a clear result, he then mentions the proposal to insert a comma between the words "Roman Catholic". In that case the Council members, after trying the standing-up system, had to vote individually. The result in this case also was rejection of the proposal.

It is also inaccurate to say: "'Roman Catholic' in precisely that order was rejected in favor of just plain 'Catholic'." The Council accepted an amendment to change "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic Apostolic Roman", not to "Catholic". (BTW, "rejected" may well be considered an inappropriate POV weasel word for this choice of wording: the vote was a positive one for the new wording; there was no vote expressly rejecting the old wording, unlike the votes that rejected the proposals to omit "Roman" and to insert a comma.)

Richard's son's official name is Richard, not because he is most frequently called Richard, but because he is officially registered as Richard. No such official act of registration has been claimed for the name "Catholic Church".

Richard's proposal certainly deserves support. Defteri (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Defteri, could you please give me the exact quote from your linked archive and possibly provide a better link? That one goes completely blank. I have this link which you may use too. http://www.archive.org/stream/a584483100granuoft/a584483100granuoft_djvu.txt If you could please highlight the section you discuss above about the bishops sitting and standing for the name issue, I would be most grateful. I dont speak Latin but I can have a priest at my church take a look at what you are pointing out here. It is strange that all of our references state that the bishops made a clear decision to use the term Catholic Church after considering whether or not to use Roman Catholic Church and you are citing this document as doing just the opposite. Perhaps this is another instance of OR on your part where you think the document is saying one thing when it is saying another, which is why we are not allowed to reference to original documents alone. English Wikipedia prefers we use English language references. Usually, the Vatican has translated its most important documents into all languages but this one is not translated. NancyHeise ^talk 02:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I am not against your proposal to include more info on the fact that Roman Catholic Church is a term used to refer to the Church as long as we have made clear to Reader what the official name really is. Also, I don't think you realize that the Whitehead ref refers to the first ecumenical council decision to use the name Catholic Church in its official documents as the clear beginning of Church agreement to an official name which has been used by the ecumenical councils even to the latest ones. NancyHeise ^talk 02:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement that: "Roman Catholic" is considered by some Catholics to be a proper name of the Church," is vague and not referenced. Vatican 1 finally decided that RCC was not a name that should be used, and that position has held through Vatican II, which did not use the term at all. Some Catholics, mainly in anglophone countries use the term, but unofficially. Mainly it is a term used of Catholics by others. I'm not sure where the idea comes from that Spanish and Romance language speakers use RCC. Not so. Even in Wikipedia, where, for various reasons, RCC is more likely to be used, the articles in Spanish, Italian and Portuguese are titled simply, "Catholic Church". Xandar 02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, going back to Richard's proposal, I have made changes to the note per his suggestions that we have agreed upon. I have kept tightly to what the sources actually say using mainly quotes from those sources that are agreed upon as meeting WP:RS and required by WP:NPOV. If I am omitting any POV's please point me to the source of the missing POV and I will include it. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 03:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple sources have been provided, and you rejected them, yet you include the silly Madrid piece as a RS "as required by WP:NPOV"? Madrid is not academic. It has no sources. It could be included only as an example of one strain of thought within the Church. If you actually think this is a WP:RS while denying all the other references contrary opinions, you are not producing a NPOV text, but a blatantly biased text. Enough is enough. The lead had gotten worse, not better, despite all this discussion.Gimmetrow 04:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The net effect of your recent edits was to remove any suggestion that the term "Roman Catholic" is used in any authorized context, even within ecumenical contexts of ARCIC. How can that possibly be NPOV? Gimmetrow 04:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We had no reference for ARCIC. I was the one who originally put that info in there and besides, it is a separate organization from the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic Encyclopedia states that the term Roman Catholic is also sometimes used by Catholics themselves and I think that it is redundant and poor form to leave the ARCIC sentence in there with no reference when CE has already made the point. Also, what is wrong with citing WP:RS sources? Patrick Madrid is a notable Catholic writer whose television program is broadcast worldwide on EWTN. Where does WP:RS state that we can only use academic writers? You are violating WP:NPOV by eliminating this POV. Where are there any other POV's? I am only trying to do what Richard has suggested and that is make clear to Reader the difference between the terms and how they are used. Madrid fits into the equation and we are allowed to use him as a source, he is not an original document and his POV supplements the others cited. He also says it in words that are concise and easy to understand, I think he is a terrific source. NancyHeise ^talk 04:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So effectively, you would have a text for the lead which says the Roman Catholic Church never uses the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" despite everyone knowing that it does on occasion. Madrid's work isn't academic. The *real* academic writers don't discuss "official name" - it seems to be the realm only of contemporary, mostly American, apologetics. If you were to phrase it as "apologists claim X" and balance that with cites from the bishop at Vatican I and the cardinal previously mentioned, maybe, just maybe, it might toe the line of NPOV while leaning over it. But if we have to go through this another month just to get you to acknowledge that there even IS another point of view, this issue is headed to arbitration. Gimmetrow 04:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I used to respect your input, but after watching you ignore consensus and argue against WP:RS especially ignoring the fact that the largest Catholic media network in the world uses Kenneth Whitehead to explain the Church's name, I think you abuse your power and are unfit to posess it. "It seems to be the realm of only contemporary, mostly American, apologetics." is your personsl WP:OR. I am the one using WP:RS sources and following Wikipedia policy and rules like WP:Consensus to arrive at text. You abuse your power to insert your own personal POV for which we can not cite anything except an opinion article in American Ecclesiastical Review that also ran an opposing opinion that you exclude. I have Annuario Pontificio which lists all diocese's and bishops conferences around the world - none of them use Roman Catholic in their official name. None of the most authroitative documents of ecumenical councils uses Roman Catholic beginning with the first ecumenical council in 325 up to this present day. Now please tell me how I am being POV to explain these referenced FACTS and how you are not being pov by asking us to insert opinions? NancyHeise ^talk 05:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you were using WP:RS to support "official name" and "Roman was rejected", you would have provided citations to official church documents when originally asked, or at least citations to genuine academic sources to show this is part of mainstream academic discourse on the church. You haven't. In the process you've argued against published records of what was actually discussed and decided at Vatican I in preference to Whitehead's spin, and it's taken months just to get "According to Whitehead" hidden in a note. That should have happened immediately. It's clearly an opinion, since there are contrary views, right? Then per WP:ASF, don't cite opinions as facts in the voice of the encyclopedia. It's not a fact that X is the name of the church. It's a fact that some people are of this opinion. Gimmetrow 05:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, you are treating the discussion as the decision. The documents of Vatican I and II are signed "Catholic Church" in accordance with the final decision of the bishops after considering Roman, because they rejected use of Roman Catholic Church in favor of Catholic Church. This escapes you for some reason and I can only think that it is some serious POV pushing on your part that is the problem. NancyHeise ^talk 05:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be drawing a WP:OR conclusion from the absence of a certain phrase in some documents. Contrary views have been provided. Only you know why you refuse to acknowledge that. Gimmetrow 06:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

NancyHeise, please stop treating anything that appears on EWTN as (practically) part of the Church's magisterium. Please stop falsely invoking consensus when the opinions of others, who are backing them up with sources, show that there is really no consensus. Please stop using your admirable power to control admission to this article as a means to exclude anything that does not fit your POV. Please stop advancing illogical conclusions as FACTS. None of the dioceses listed in the Annuario Pontificio has "Roman Catholic" in its name? And none of them has "Catholic" in its name! "Roman Catholic" does not appear in any document of an ecumenical council (though Dei Filius does have "Catholic Apostolic Roman Church", and Lumen Gentium says the Church "is called the Holy (Catholic Apostolic) Roman Church")? These documents are not the only official documents of the Church. Defteri (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you have more of your illogical conclusions. For you, because the Pope has signed certain documents as "Bishop of the Catholic Church", it follows that "Catholic Church" is the one and only official name of the Church. It would be just as logical to conclude that the other bishops who signed the documents did not belong to the Catholic Church, since they did not (were not allowed to, as one of them complained) sign as "Bishop of the Catholic Church"! The First Vatican Council did not "reject Roman Catholic Church in favour of Catholic Church". On the contrary, the Council rejected the proposal to change "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church", and later accepted an amendment to change "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Apostolic Roman Church", not to "Catholic Church". Who is it that is doing the POV pushing? Defteri (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have inserted material agreed by vast consensus of editors. Regarding Whitehead, WP:Reliable source examples says that sources that are cited by others are more authoritative than those that are not cited at all as examples of the name - your sources are not cited by anyone - Whitehead is cited by the most respected Catholic media outlets EWTN, the largest Catholic media outlet in the world and Our Sunday Visitor. Further, Whitehead as well as two other sources including the Protestant academic McClintock all use the term official name when discussing Catholic Church as the name of the Church. We now also have Patrick Madrid, a valid POV to include in the article text. We have ZERO references that say Catholic Church is not the official name. You persistently violate WP:OR when arguing against our agreed text because none of your sources refers to the church documents you cite as evidence of anything to do with the name. Defteri even wants to cite an instance where Pope Pius XII is talking about what "others say" in Humani Generis where he refers to "Roman Catholic Church". I can not work with such blatant unreasonable POV pushing that ignores valid sources and consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 05:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In Humani Generis Pius XII is talking about what he himself wrote in another encyclical. Read what he wrote. Defteri (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Text for NancyHeise

Quum exstent adhuc reprehensores Concilii Vaticani, qui quod solo actu surgendi et sedendi suffragia de emendationibus lata sint, Concilio in crimen vertunt, sequatur hoc loco exemplum suffragationis, quod accuratius in actis relatum est.

Agitur de primis verbis primi capitis Constitutionis de fide. Verba in schemate Patribus proposito erant haec : „Sancta Romana catholica Ecclesia credit etc." (C. V. 71 c). Duae emendationes proponebantur. Unus ex Patribus voluit, vocem „Romana" omitti. Alter, poni „Catholica atque Romana Ecclesia", seu, si id non placeret, saltem comma interponi inter verba „Romana" et „catholica" (C. V. 99 a). Iam relatione de emendationibus, quae in primam capitis paragraphum propositae erant, habita, acceditur ad suffragia hoc modo : Iussu Praesidis Subsecretarius ambonem ascendit et primam emendationem, quam Patres scriptam in manibus habebant, legit:

„Proponitur ut initio capitis primi simpliciter dicatur: Sancta catholica Ecclesia credit et confitetur unum esse etc."

Tum Emus primus Praeses Patres in hunc modum interrogavit:

„Rmi Patres qui huic emendationi modo lectae assentiuntur, nunc surgere et tamdiu stare debent, donec satis constet de maiori vel minori suffragiorum numero pro hac emendatione."

Et paucissimis surgentibus, primus Praeses ait:

„Evidens est, quod longe maior Patrum pars huic emendationi contradicat."

Dein his verbis Patres interrogavit de suffragiis secunda vice dandis:

„Iam vero iuxta normam praescriptam necessarium est, ut de eadem emendatione exquiratur, qui Patres eamdem reprobandam censeant. Itaque nunc ii Rmi Patres , qui huic eidem emendationi contradicunt, surgere debent, ac tamdiu stare, donec satis constet de maiori vel minori suffragiorum numero contra hanc emendationem."

Et surgentibus Patribus pene omnibus, Emus primus Praeses addidit:

„Iterum evidens est, longe maiorem Patrum partem huic emendationi contradicere. Et idcirco ex utroque experimento constat, primam hanc emendationem a Concilio fuisse reiectam."

De emendatione secunda suffragia deinceps rogata sunt. Et quoniam duplici constat parte, prima pars, qua nimirum proponitur, ut in capite primo legatur: Catholica atque Romana Ecclesia, eadem ratione ac prima emendatio reiecta est a Patribus eadem omnino forma bis interrogatis. Secunda vero pars, ubi legitur: Sin autem non placuerit Patribus, ut saltem comma interponatur inter verba „Romana" et „catholica", cum suffragiis Patrum subiecta est, non eumdem consensum invenit: sed cum plures et stantes et sedentes essent, scrutatores suffragiorum vocati sunt, ut et stantes et sedentes numerarent. Quod dum fieret, plures ex Rmis Patribus Praesides rogarunt, ut quoad propositionem hanc suspenderentur suffragia, ut interim collatis consiliis obtineri consensus facilius posset. Postulationi huic Praesides annuerunt, et per Subsecretarium indixerunt suspensionem suffragiorum circa huiusmodi propositionem, et declararunt actum ferendi suffragia in sequenti die habendum esse.

This is taken directly from http://www.archive.org/stream/a584483100granuoft/a584483100granuoft_djvu.txt, with a few corrections of very minor mistakes by the character-recognition software. If anyone has doubts about its exactness, that person can use the "Find" function to get to the passage and check. The .pdf version is, of course, free of the mistakes by the software that turned it into a txt document . Defteri (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, now can you please state what this document is saying about the official name of the church and highlight (bold is fine) where this statement is made? Also, can you please tell me why this document is not on the Vatican website translated like all the others? NancyHeise ^talk 05:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It says that the Council overwhelmingly rejected a proposal that the Church should not be called Roman Catholic, but only Catholic. Defteri (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that this document is expressly saying the opposite of what Whitehead says? Can you please bold the exact statements in this article that support your interpretation here because the official documents of Vatican I and Vatican II were signed by the pope as "Catholic Church" not "Roman Catholic Church" which supports Whitehead's version not your interpretation of this which I am not even sure matches the original site from which it was copied. NancyHeise ^talk 06:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, doesn't it seem to you also that the Council did overwhelmingly reject the proposal that the Church should be called not Roman Catholic, but only Catholic? The Pope (but not the other bishops who signed the documents) signed these documents with the title of "Bishop of the Catholic Church" (= overseer of the universal Church?). Why should that be taken as a declaration by the Pope that the only official name of the Church is "Catholic Church"? Is it just because Whitehead advances that fallacious argument? Defteri (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not just Whitehead, but also EWTN, Our Sunday Visitor, the Protestant academic McClintock, and Patrick Madrid. If there are so many reliable and notable sources in agreement and none against, it seems clear to me that you are ignoring consensus of notable Reliable sources in the matter. NancyHeise ^talk 09:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Since when did popularist apologists such as Whitehead and Madrid and those that promote their far from neutral opinions, such as EWTN and Our Sunday Visitor, become "notable" and "reliable" sources?! Their inclusion in the article is a joke - and should be embarassing to anyone who values Wikipedia. Afterwriting (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To help NancyHeise see how the First Vatican Council did treat the proposal to change "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic", here is a translation of part of the Latin text above:

On the President's orders, the Undersecretary went up the pulpit and read the amendment, which the Fathers had to hand: "It is proposed that at the start of the first chapter it should be stated simply: The Holy Catholic Church believes and confesses that there is one etc.". The Cardinal First President asked the Fathers as follows: "The Most Reverend Fathers who agree with the amendment that has just been read should now stand up and remain standing until it is sufficiently clear whether there is a majority or a minority of votes for this amendment." Since very few stood up, the First President said: "It is evident that by far the greater part of the Fathers oppose this amendment." Then he asked for a second vote of the Fathers as follows: "But according to the rule that has been laid down it is necessary to find out which Fathers think the amendment should be rejected. Accordingly now those Most Reverend Fathers who oppose the same amendment should stand up and remain standing until it is sufficiently clear whether there is a majority or a minority of votes against this amendment." Since almost all the Fathers stood up, the Cardinal First President added: "It is again evident that by far the greater part of the Fathers oppose this amendment. And so both tests show that this first amendment has been rejected by the Council."

(The amendment that was thus rejected was to change "The Holy Roman Catholic Church believes ..." to "The Holy Catholic Church believes ...") Defteri (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Catholicism as a state religion

I found it curious that it is not mentioned that Catholicism serves as the official religion of at least 8 European and Latin American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Malta, etc.). Is there any way it could be mentioned somewhere? --Jamás arrodillado (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be very worthwhile to mention thiss. Xandar 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If true. Again, what is meant by "official"? Defteri (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

See state religion. As an example, in the case of Argentina, the constitution states in Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 2 that "the Federal Government supports the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion." The government interprets this as making the Catholic religion the only one to receive economic support from the government and be able to influence national policy. I shall start looking for references. --Jamás arrodillado (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good proposal, I think it would be best to find one scholarly source that says this, I'll search and include this info if I can find a good source. Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 19:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish treaty, I linked to above refers to the Spanish government continuing to raise revenue for the Catholic Church, which would give it a somewhat official position. Most concordats nowadays merely set out the freedoms that the Church has to operate though. In the Uk the Catholic Church gets funding for its schools, but on the same basis as other religious groupings. Xandar 23:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also in France I believe. In Germany you can pay Church tax via your income tax, but this applies to all religious groups. Also the government approves the appointment of at least the primate. I think the article should just say that Catholicism is the state religion of various states, & leave it at that. Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am restoring the following comment only because it was suggested that I should. I must make quite clear that it was not intended as opposition to the proposal discussed here. As I wrote in the edit summary of my removal of my comment, I was just "thinking aloud". I know there is an article on state religions, with lists of them, but I am still wondering what is the objective basis for those lists. Even where there is an "established Church" (as in England, but not in the rest of the United Kingdom), that seems to have little practical significance today. Does a state religion mean one that has been declared to be such by law (constitution or statute or act of the head of state)? Is it enough that by law the head of state must be of a certain religion, while there is no law about the religion of the state itself or of other officials and citizens of the state (as in Argentina, the United Kingdom, and Vatican City State)? I don't think that the fact that the majority, even the overwhelming majority, of the population are of a certain religion makes that religion the state religion. I would call that religion the national religion, not the state religion. After reading even part of my wondering aloud, some editors will say, with good reason, that the matter should be raised at Talk:State religion. True, but I am not sufficiently interested to follow it up there, and I was really only wondering whether, because of the vagueness of the meaning of "official Church", it is worthwhile making the proposed insertion here - which I am not positively opposing. Defteri (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Involvement of the State in funding of Church institutions such as schools or collecting taxes on behalf of the Church itself as an institution from those reckoned to be its members does not make a Church "the official Church". If it did, you would have to say of each of several Churches in Germany, Austria, Italy ... that that Church is the official Church. The financial aid given to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church (or whatever is the official name used in the Constitution) in Argentina is supposed to be in compensation for Church property confiscated in the nineteenth century. Even constitutions are subject to interpretation. Was "the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church" the official Church in Ireland, when its constitution stated that the State recognised its special position "as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens"? But the constitution also stated: "The State also recognises the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland, the Religious Society of Friends in Ireland, as well as the Jewish Congregations and the other religious denominations existing in Ireland at the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution." So I myself have difficulty in understanding what being "the official Church" means in modern times. But I suppose someone else can clarify the question. Defteri (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. These days the role of an official state religion tends to be small & varied, which is why I think we should just mention it briefly. I know of no Catholic equivalent to Greece where, amazingly, you still have to be Othodox (or ready to declare yourself so - Othodox atheists welcome) to teach in state schools. The Church of England is certainly the "state church" of England (but only England), though in fact this involves no cash subsidy, and in practice not really very much these days, though a selection of bishops are still ex officio members of the House of Lords - other religious figures are appointed personally. One of the few things the monarch's coronation oath swears to do is to uphold the CofE's rights.Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the best place to discuss the Church's past and current status as a "state religion" is here. It took me a while to find that article because the article title is a bit irregular. I would prefer a title along the lines of Catholic Church and governments. Would it be reasonable to try and summarize that article in a section of this article? --Richard (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

a sentence linking perhaps both to this and state religion is enough. As it stands the article is woefully odd and patchy, & completely neglects the other side of the coin - the influence of governments on the church. Secisek, any chance of a work-over? Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic links article is an appalling and confused mish-mash of opinion, random historical snippets and "believe it or not"-type stuff. It doesn't deserve a link. There probably neeeds to be a brief daughter article with just information on the Church's relations with states today which can be linked in. Xandar 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Excommunicate! Excommunicate! (with apologies to all Daleks)

I did a Google search on "Roman Catholic diocese" and was appalled to discover how many official diocesean websites use "Roman Catholic Diocese of ???" as a name for their dioceses. Obviously all these dioceses and their bishops are being disloyal and in blatant breach of the church's clear and offical teaching authority on this matter as decided once-and-for-all at Vatican 1. They also obviously haven't read Whitehead or watch EWTN. These dioceses and their bishops need to be immediately brought into line with the magisterium or risk excommunication. Afterwriting (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Within the Church, Roman Catholic means the part of the Catholic Church that uses the Roman Rite. In the same geographical area from my local Roman Catholic Church, we have a Chaldean Catholic Church, which is also part of the worldwide Catholic Church. However, in its official name, no Catholic Church diocese uses the name Roman Catholic. My website uses a name other than my official name on my birth certificate thus I think it is clear that we can not place too much reliability on web site names. Annuario Pontificio lists all the Catholic dioceses as well as all of the bishops conferences, I searched all of them and none use the name "Roman Catholic". NancyHeise ^talk 05:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Within the Church, "Roman Catholic" does not officially (whatever about popularly) mean the part of the Catholic Church that uses the Roman Rite. That would mean that Milan is outside the Roman Catholic Church. It would mean that Milan and the Chaldaean Catholic Church and the Maronite Church are not within the one Church outside of which, as Innocent III insisted, there is no salvation! Afterwriting's point applies also to the Popes and the Roman Curia, who have applied "Roman Catholic" to the Church as a whole: they should be declared to be out of line with the magisterium and declared to be excommunicated! And even the ecumenical councils who called the Church both Roman and Catholic should perhaps be expurgated! Defteri (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Defteri, you are mistaking Afterwritings comments. Afterwriting was commenting on the use of Roman Catholic by some Churches on their websites. I was trying to explain in a nice way why Catholics use the term Roman Catholic at times. This is cited to Whitehead and is also my own personal experience. No one is discussing excommunicating anyone. NancyHeise ^talk 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking ironically about excommunication. Like Afterwriting. Defteri (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nancy keeps on missing the whole point of various editors' objections to the use of Whitehead and falls back on false and misleading logic to keep defending the total inadequacy of using him as a reliable source. Whitehead is plainly incorrect in many of his assertions and using him as a source is a sign of desperation - as is any reliance on EWTN which has an obvious polemical agenda. Appealing to its "global" nature or apparent popularity is completely erroneous and smacks of the "two billion Roman Catholics can't be wrong" school of argument. Afterwriting (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am following Wikipedia's own rules concering WP:RS and WP:Reliable source examples and WP:Consensus it is the very small number of suspiciously new editors with instant editing experience that are appealing to desperate measures like denying the notability of using the only source used by any Catholic media to explain the Church's name. Whitehead is that source used by not only the largest worldwie Catholic media network but others like Our Sunday Visitor as well. This is a valid source and I find it interesting that you call him unacceptable. Please cite for me the Wikipedia policy that would support this. NancyHeise ^talk 07:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that a television network that didn't want to be subjected to Vatican oversight should be treated as the Voice of the Vatican. Defteri (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from banter and please just provide a Wikipedia policy that would indicate that Whitehead is not a reliable source. If you cannot answer this simple question, all will understand, but then I will also say that your claims are specious and there will no longer be need of any further discussion on this topic. --^StormRider 07:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks StormRider. To Defteri, Whitehead was also cited by Our Sunday Visitor as well as EWTN which is a member of SIGNIS. What makes you dislike Whitehead so much? I think you just dont like what he says which is not a reason to not use a source, especially one that is the only ones used by Catholic media with bishop and vatican oversight. NancyHeise ^talk 08:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I say that Whitehead should not be cited? I don't believe I did. I think I have several times said that I do not object to having him cited. But I do say that he is not of such authority as to exclude all mention of views other than his. Defteri (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Defteri's comment, my comment is an expanded version of what he wrote)

Hi StormRider, despite what others say it's not so much that Whitehead is not an RS. It's a question of what he is an RS about. Does he claim to speak for the church in an official capacity or to describe what the church's official stance is (rather than what it should be)? No, he doesn't exactly make those claims. How then do we conclude that what he says is "the official stance of the church"? Through a multi-step chain of logic that argues about EWTN and Catholic media and some other organization whose name I forget at the moment. To assert that Whitehead's position IS the official stance of the church is then arguably OR. That is, it is clearly supportable to say "Whitehead argues that the proper name of the church is..." or even "Whitehead asserts that the church has adopted "the Catholic Church" as its name since the first ecumenical council and every council since that one." However, it is a somewhat more dicey statement to say "The official name of the church is... (cite Whitehead)". The former formulations assert what Whitehead's opinion is. The latter formulation assert a fact and use Whitehead as an RS for that fact. That's stretching things a bit.

As I've said before, I agree with Whitehead's argument that "the Catholic Church" is the proper name for the church but I remain a little shaky on the assertion that "the Catholic Church" IS the official name of the church. I still think that Whitehead's piece is not limited to cool statements of fact but includes a heavy dose of polemic and those portions should be treated as such.

If you consider Cardinal Vaughan's characterization about the two meanings of "Roman Catholic", it is clear that Whitehead is inveighing against the "Branch Theory" meaning of "Roman Catholic" and, IMO, justifiably so. The Catholic Church does not accept the Branch Theory and refuses to be pegged as the "Roman" branch rather than as the "universal catholic church of Christ". However, Whitehead is so wrapped up in his anti-Branch Theory polemic that he does not accept as valid the other meaning of "Roman Catholic" that Cardinal Vaughan speaks about.

Thus, we should accept Whitehead as an RS for the anti-Branch Theory POV but not consider him a final and authoritative source on the use of the term "Roman Catholic" by Catholics. Cardinal Vaughan provides the balance that we need to provide an NPOV presentation of the opinions in this regard.

The continued usage of "Roman Catholic" if only in "less than official contexts" suggests that both of Cardinal Vaughan's meanings are still extant a century later.

Carrying this line of thought one step further, it is my opinion that we don't adequately present what non-Catholics (Anglicans and Protestants) think about the term "Roman Catholic". Doing so would more fully satisfy the NPOV policy. Other editors have insisted that this article should focus on what the Catholic Church believes and says about itself. I disagree with this approach vehemently. I think we should present all human knowledge about the Catholic Church regardless of whether that "knowledge" (facts and opinions) comes from Catholics or non-Catholics.

--Richard (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to meet your expectations Richard but I was reverted by Gimmetrow [5] who did not want to use Patrick Madrid even though he qualifies as a RS and is a notable Catholic source per WP:RSN [6]

Further to Defteri: I keep asking to see what those other views are? We can't cite original documents such as your suggestion Pius XII's Humani Generis because that is WP:OR and Pius is not talking about the official name of the Church but what "others say". I can't use the American Ecclesiastical Review because both instances of opinions regarding the name (one for and one against) are opinion pieces that are forbidden under WP:RS. Right now I have these sources:

• The Protestant Academic McClintocK
• Whitehead used by Catholic media
• Catholic Encyclopedia, a scholarly work
• Linda Woodhead, an academic university press
• Michael Walsh, an academic ex-Catholic priest whose work is clearly POV anti-Catholic

I believe I have made good use of POV's of all walks and that these constitute "other sources" NancyHeise ^talk 09:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You say you keep asking what other views there are. Do you really think there is no view other than "The term 'Roman Catholic' is not used by the Church herself"? And do you really think that, when Pius XII spoke about "the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing", he was saying that the doctrine was that of other people ("what others say"), not one that he himself had explained in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi? (If I were to write, "NancyHeise says she is not bound by the doctrine explained in Pius XII's encyclical, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing", I would still be saying that the doctrine in question is Pius XII's, not NancyHeise's.) And do you really think there is no statement by the Church in which it calls itself both Roman and Catholic, and even Roman Catholic without "and"? Defteri (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article cites Walsh, but does not cite him for his opinion on the proper name of Catholics. Why is that? Gimmetrow 17:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR and civility warning

Hi all,

Nancy and Gimmetrow were revert-warring on Friday and stopped just short of violating 3RR. I would like to remind everybody that WP:3RR explicitly says:

The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule.

Now, I don't like to block editors or protect pages if it's not really necessary. And, since I'm an active editor of this page, I would refrain from doing so myself anyway. However, Karanacs who is also an admin felt the edit-warring on this page was unacceptable and issued a warning to that effect a week or so ago. If the edit-warring continues, I will go ask another admin to step in and stop it.

Please, let's avoid edit-warring. It is counter-productive and inflames emotions unnecessarily.

Along the same lines, there are obviously strong opinions and strong emotions at play here. That's no excuse for incivility in the form of insulting language and acrimonious tones.

Let us seek to find a compromise wording that we can all agree upon. In the meantime, please focus on discussion of our differences rather than engaging in edit-warring.

--Richard (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I was trying to insert language that you yourself proposed in the solution that we all discussed just a day ago. My effort has been to work for consensus which I have consistently done but I am persistently dogged by Gimmetrow, Soidi, and Defteri who refuse to accept obvious reliable sources as just that and throw away the vast consensus reached by over 15 editors who are mostly not Catholics. NancyHeise ^talk 09:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, I continue to be in awe of the amazing amount of effort that you have put into this article. I explain below that, although I disapprove of the revert warring, I do think both of you have valid points. I hope a suitable compromise text can be found.

Both you and Gimmetrow would do well to try to live by WP:BRD. I try to hold myself to WP:1RR although I find myself slipping into the second revert from time to time.

Hang in there, Nancy. I know it's frustrating to deal with so many opinionated and obstinate editors. Unfortunately, that's what you sign up for when you assume the informal role of "chief editor".

--Richard (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and Nancy has consistenly refused to accept reliable sources which happen to be contrary to Madrid and her interpretation of Whitehead. More below. Gimmetrow 17:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Some pontification about reliable sources

OK, there's been a lot of debate about who is and is not a reliable source and whether non-scholarly sources are admissible.

I'm going to get on my soapbox and pontificate about my opinion regarding RS. I don't claim that everything I say is Wikipedia policy cuz I haven't spent a lot of time researching that. I do hope what I argue below makes sense though.

A reliable source is someone who is published in some sort of controlled fashion via editor review. (i.e. not someone who is self-published) That said, some sources are more reliable than others. Scholarly sources are more reliable than non-scholarly sources... sometimes.

When I was in a college, there was a joke that went something like this...

If Professor A says something is true, you can be sure that it is.

If Professor B says something is true, it probably is true most of the time

If Professor C says something is true, it probably is true only in specific, limited contexts

If Professor D says something is true, you can be sure that it isn't.

The point being that ... just because someone is a "scholarly source" doesn't give us license to turn our brains off and accept what he/she wrote uncritically. We have to weigh what different scholars say and determine what the consensus of the scholarly community is. Global warming is a good example of this.

While we should prefer scholarly sources to non-scholarly sources, this does not mean that non-scholarly sources are inadmissible. However, we should make clear to the reader the nature of the source. Is this a scholar who is presenting the majority opinion of the scholarly community or a minority opinion? Is it a writer for a popular audience?

As I understand it, neither Whitehead nor Madrid are scholars. So what? We don't really have scholars that are writing in opposition to their views so it's not that big a deal. We do have Cardinal Vaughan, AER and other sources to shed additional light on the topic but I see no reason to dismiss Whitehead and Madrid just because they are not scholars. Not every statement in Wikipedia is sourced and many are sourced to non-scholarly sources.

Once again, we must make sure to state facts as facts and opinions as opinions. I like WP:ASF as a guideline.

As a matter of policy, I disapprove of Gimmetrow's recent revert war to remove Madrid as a source but I do have some qualms about the way that Nancy presented Madrid's position. If we say "According to Madrid, X is true" and we don't provide an opposing opinion "According to Source B, X is not true", the article could be interpreted as suggesting that it is the consensus opinion of Wikipedia editors that Madrid is right. If we write more carefully and say "Some Catholic writers such as Madrid assert that X is true.", then we do not throw the support of Wikipedia behind Madrid but simply say "well, this is what some Catholic writers assert".

Yes, I know it's a fine distinction but I think it's important to Gimmetrow and others (including myself).

Hope this helps. --Richard (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I would be curious to know what you mean by scholar. My understanding, and Mr. Webster's, is that a scholar is an erudite, or learned, individual with a profound knowledge of a particular subject. Mr. Whitehead is an author of a multitude of books on Catholic history, culture, and doctrine (google him or look at amazon), a prolific contributor on Catholic doctrine and history in Catholic magazines, and was a past undersecretary of post-secondary education for the US Government. Any attempt to paint Mr. Whitehead as something less than a scholar, or a lone opinion within a multitude of voices is a mis-characterization of his credibility and expertise. He is most definitely a scholar. You may be confusing scholar with academic. Let's be careful about definitions before we start labeling people; when used inappropriately one's words devolve into propaganda too easily. Whitehead is not the Magisterium, but he is most definitely an expert, reliable, scholarly source.--^StormRider 10:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

He might be a scholar of some sort but he is certainly not a reliable one - and the only thing he seems to be an "expert" on is the kind of "propaganda" you advise us against. This article cannot be taken seriously whilst those who have decided for themselves to own and control it continue to include Whitehead's nonsense. This article is frankly embarassing. Afterwriting (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that meant to be a constructive comment or are you simply providing an example of philistinism? If you are trolling, please move on. If you are attempting to contribute, please do some research. When ignorance begins to opine minds commence to numb. The sole reason that Whitehead is being used is that he is an expert in the field. However, he is not part of the Magisterium and cannot speak in behalf of the Catholic Church, but he is scholar and a reliable reference that is eminently qualified in this topic.

Richard, on important matters I am not sure we disagree here. My comment is just to be careful about how we label people. As is obvious by After's comment, we must first speak from a position of knowledge and clarity so that we can move forward easily and in a collegial manner. --^StormRider 11:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stormrider, I confess that I personally have little knowledge in this area compared to other editors. My characterization of Whitehead as non-scholarly thus comes from others rather than my own assessment. That said, if we consider scholars to be those who have formal training (e.g. a doctorate) and have published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, it appears that Whitehead is not a scholar by that definition. That doesn't mean he is not a reliable source as some have claimed. It means that he is less reliable than a scholar would be. But so far we have found few scholars to cite on this subject so we must rely on popular writers like Whitehead and Madrid (by popular, I mean those who write for a popular audience).

As an aside, it's frustrating to realize that most scholars and the Church itself seem not to care enough about the "official name" of the church to write much if anything about it (either for or against "Roman Catholic"). Perhaps we should take a cue from that and not spend an inordinate amount of time espousing the polemic of popular writers.

Mr. Webster may have a different definition of scholar from the one I gave above but I think that's irrelevant. There is no requirement that Wikipedia only cite scholars but there is a requirement that we evaluate the relative credibility of sources and communicate that assessment to the reader.

Credibility must be carefully limited to the true areas of a source's expertise. That Whitehead writes books and contributes to Catholic magazines suggests that he is a credible source on Catholic doctrine. Being a past undersecretary gives him general credibility but adds nothing to his credibility on Catholic doctrine as he was not undersecretary for Catholic doctrine. Is he infallible? Well, are all books and magazines that treat Catholic doctrine infallible or is there room for difference of opinion?

In summary, I accept that Whitehead is "an erudite, or learned, individual with a profound knowledge of a particular subject". That doesn't necessarily put him in the ranks of an academic scholar but more importantly it doesn't mean he's right. Even academic scholars have been known to be wrong on occasion.

If we wish to call Whitehead a scholar (by Webster's definition) whose works are admissible references for a credible opinion on the matter, that's fine with me. I have not objected to that. If, on the other hand, we wish to argue that everything he writes is gospel truth, then I have a problem with that.

--Richard (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

He might be a scholar of some sort but he is certainly not a reliable one - and the only thing he seems to be an "expert" on is the kind of "propaganda" you advise us against. This article cannot be taken seriously whilst those who have decided for themselves to own and control it continue to include Whitehead's nonsense. This article is frankly embarassing. Afterwriting (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you really need to take more care about using the words "philistinism", "trolling" and "ignorance" about others. Secondly, as has already been amply demonstrated by various intelligent and unbiased contributors who actually have done "some research", there are a number of valid reasons to not trust Whitehead as being anywhere close to a "reliable reference" or as "eminently qualified in this topic". The self-appointed guardians of this article are dragging down the standard of the article by using quotations from biased populist apologists with a veneer of apparent scholarship and are misusing Wikipedia policies to defend this. Afterwriting (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Gimmetrow below)

Let's all try to keep the invective, slurs and insults down to a dull roar. It really is possible to have civil discourse about contentious issues. Really. Respect and collegiality go a long way to making Wikipedia a worthwhile community. --Richard (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to the official name of the church

• Whitehead is an OK source. The text we're using here shows some degree of careful writing, so that it doesn't say more than it should. The problem is that people have read into it more than Whitehead actually says. His claim is "Roman Catholic Church is not the proper name of this church". The data he gives in support are that "Roman Catholic" "appears nowhere in the the documents [of Vatican I] about the Church herself". He doesn't say the Church officially rejected the term at Vatican I, but that the English-speaking bishops successfully had it removed - and the phrase strictly speaking only applies to the documents of Vatican I de ecclesia. We know what that actually refers to - the proposal to change "The Roman Catholic Church believes" to "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" in, again strictly speaking, one document of Vatican I. This was not a rejection of the term "Roman Catholic", as we know from multiple other sources, and Whitehead doesn't say that it was. Likewise, "nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic." And similar factoids about the non-appearance of the term in a variety of official contexts. Whitehead does not say the Church officially rejected the term "Roman Catholic". Whitehead does claim "The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself". Non-use doesn't mean rejected. The Church doesn't use "Homoousian Church" in its official documents, but it probably doesn't reject it. (And recall that "Roman Catholic Church" does appear in encyclicals of Pius XII.)
• Madrid is not an OK source. It doesn't show even the degree of careful writing of Whitehead. It might be included as an example of one strain of thought within the Church. I've brought forth a Cardinal, a bishop at Vatican I, Hughes, and other examples to show contrary views. Since all these were rejected for various wikilawyering reasons, I am discouraged to do any more research on the topic until I see some some change in the attitude form the OWNers of this article.
• A couple years ago I spent months at this article arguing for the page to be at Catholic Church. When someone on your own side is telling you the article appears biased on the point of "official name" and "Roman was rejected", it's a good sign that it is at least biased, if not wrong.
• Only the Church can determine its official name. Since the proponents of "official name" have failed to provide any church document where the church declares the church's official name, and "official name" is not part of the mainstream discourse on the church, all mention of that should be removed from the article, and certainly from the lead.
• The solution I have proposed various times is to say something like:
  • The Roman Catholic Church, or simply Catholic Church, [note]
  • [note]: includes PA) Vaughan described two meanings of "Roman Catholic Church" PB) sectarian origin of the meaning the church doesn't accept[many cites], PC) something to the effect: "There is a strong body of opinion within the Catholic Church that the name "Catholic Church" should be used exclusively and that the name "Roman Catholic Church" should be avoided because of the sectarian connotations associated with that name."[cite Walsh, Whitehead, maybe even Madrid as an example].
• Nancy has objected to PC because it's supposedly not cited. It's an example of WP:ASF, where we take one step back from someone stating an opinion and cite as fact that people hold these opinions. We don't need someone else saying "people hold these opinions" to include that. (Though, in fact, Walsh does say that[7].)
• I've also suggested a lead sentence: The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church[note]..." Xandar objected to that on style grounds, presumably WP:LEAD. If such a version would be stable (I wouldn't have a problem with it), then an exception to the style suggestions may be justified.
• Gimmetrow 17:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gimmetrow. I think a summary of it is "Failing an explicit declaration by the church as to its official name, anything else is simply an argument as to what its official name is or should be. So let us cast Whitehead and Madrid as espousing those arguments rather than as making statements of fact." The fact that you or I agree with them doesn't make their arguments true. They are still arguments. --Richard (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow's position is completely unacceptable. The proper name of the Church MUSt appear clearly in the article - which he appears to want to suppress for some reason. It is quite clear to any open minded person what the proper and official name of the Church is. And it is quite clear from the sources that RCC is NOT the Church's official or proper name. What we see here is blatant POV-pushing, often from people who have come into the article JUST to push this POV. Gimmetrow repeats the claim that the Churfh has not defined its name - yet it does so clearly in Lumen Gentium the Catechism of the Catholic Church and all major official documents and pronouncements. Opponents demand word for word secondary references for "official" and then find vacuous excuses to reject them when they are provided and abuse the destinguished writers involveed. In other word any writer who backs the article text is to be immediately abused and reviled. In favour of their preferred "Roman Cathollic" they produce nothing authoritative except OR and their own theorising. That is not on. We annot have a text that falsely implies that Roman Catholic is a Catholic preferred, official or proper usage for the Church. And no. Bishop Vaughan did not back Roman Catholic in 1903. He excused his own enforced use of the term by the UK Government, saying that in some cases it was acceptable, and in some it isn't. Xandar 18:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And as far as Whitehead and Madrid are concerned, their views are not "just arguments". On the issue of the Church's name, they are expert sources. WP policy states that a body decides what its name is. Both are bona-fide representatives of the Church view of itself, and present their views in Church-approved sources. No legitimate present-day Church writers have been produced to argue for Roman Catholic hurch as the official name. Nor have Whitehead and Madrid been corrected or censored by the Church for their views. So there is no justification in presenting Whitehead and Madrid as "JUST OPINIONS". They are citations for the article text. Produce citations as good for the name you support, or stop pushing your own or your denomination's POV. Xandar 19:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources have been provided. Only you know why you choose to ignore them. Gimmetrow 19:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, where above do I suggest having "a text that falsely implies that Roman Catholic is a Catholic preferred" usage for the Church. And it's time for you to stop your incessant allegations of OR. You have provided nothing authoritative to support your OR. No official church documents despite being asked to provide them for months. You bring up the passage in Lumen Gentium. SENSE OF THE WORDS "KINGDOM OF GOD", a document by Fr. Most, quoting Cardinal Avery Dulles, and THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH, VATICAN II, ‘LUMEN GENTIUM’, a document by the Cardinal prefect of the CDF, both discuss that passage from Lumen Gentium. Both documents use the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" while discussing that passage. Both documents are hosted by EWTN, if that matters to anybody. And if you want to add context to Cardinal Vaughan's statement, explaining the situation with the British govt, that's fine. The fact is that he gave that explanation, and it's not unusual. I could, if I haven't, quote others making similar explanations. Gimmetrow 19:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow your last post is arguing that we should not use "Officially known as" in the lead. You based this on A) trying to rule out the good quality secondary sources that say this, and B) there not being a Church document that says the exact words, presumably in that order: "This Church is officially known as the Catholic Church." That is a specious argument.

Firstly, as you know, "official" is NOT the sticking point here. I for one am quite happy with "properly", "rightfully", or some other term that lets the reader know clearly and unambiguously what the proper name of the Church is. As you also know "officially" was picked by a large majority of active editors as the word that did this with the least element of attaching an opinion to the phrase. So trying to remove "officially" and adding an obfuscatory term such as "simply" or "also known as" is trying to blur and confuse the issue of what the true name of the Church is.

Secondly, you and some others purposively ignore A) The Church's use of Catholic Church on all its OFFICIAL documents and pronouncements of importance since Vatican II, and B) The infallible self-defining declaration of Apostolic Constitution Lumen Gentium, which specifically defines the Church and gives its name as the Catholic Church. i.e. 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, 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, This 8th section of LG is one of the most quoted in Catholicism, and appears verbatim TWICE in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So arguing that there is some other name on any level with Catholic Church in official usage would be blatantly misleading.

The two documents you quote do not make any sort of case in the other direction. One is by William Most, who uses "Catholic Church" throughout. The only use of "Roman Catholic" is in a quote from Avery Dulles. The same applies to the Cardinal Ratzinger article. "Catholic" is used eighteen times. Roman Catholic is used just ONCE, and that is in a quote from Boff! Rigorous academics quote other sources exactly, including their terminology. That doesn't mean taht they accept or validate it. Catholic is the proper term. I'm all for explanations, but if Vaughn is used, he must be referred to properly, not as a supporter of RCC, he fought against the term, but as someone who explained its different meanings.Xandar 20:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(Failed twice to get this in because of edit conflicts.) Xandar, how many times will you repeat that this passage of Lumen Gentium says that "Catholic Church" is the Church's official name, when it says nothing of the sort? The only thing that passage said about what the Church is called is that "it is called the Holy (Catholic Apostolic) Roman Church". It is ridiculous to claim that, because it also spoke of the Church as the Catholic Church, it thereby declared "Catholic Church" to be the Church's proper or official name. So what document of the Church did declare "Catholic Church" to be its one and only official name? Defteri (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The wording of Lumen Gentium is what I quoted. Your phrase does not appear. Instead there is a redirection in some versions to a footnote. That footnote itself redirects to a phrase used in the 1870 document by way of cross-reference. Footnotes are not part of the definition. Xandar 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The footnote does not redirect: it states that in two earlier highly official documents the Church "is called ..." This statement can and should be cited.

2. The passage does give a definition: it defines the Church that it says is called the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church and the Holy Roman Church. It defines it as that "which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him". Identifying the Church in a way that eliminates any possibility of confusion with other Churches is what is meant by a "definition". "Catholic Church" is not a definition: it is a name, like "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church", and its meaning in this context had to be clarified by the definition that followed. So where in the wording you give is there a declaration of an official name? Defteri (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... I had hoped that we would get away from the debate about what the official name of the church actually IS but I see that we have slipped back into that tarpit. I would really like to park that part of the debate by agreeing to keep something close to the current text in the lead "officially known as the Catholic Church". I am more interested in getting all the various sources that we have into Note 1. I would be happy if Note 1 said something like "Catholic writers state that ...". The distinction that I'm drawing here is the difference between saying that "X is true" and "Catholic writers state that X is true" and then we reference Madrid and Whitehead. Well then, if someone wants to doubt that X is true, they can consider the source "Catholic writers". Which Catholic writers? Madrid and Whitehead. --Richard (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any trouble with the words "Catholic writers state that..." in the note. What I fear however, is that if we take that road, other people will want to "balance" the statement by adding, "Other Catholic writers state that..." and trying to invent a see-saw argument on the issue that doesn't really exist by giving undue weight to any real or imagined Catholic support for RCC. So the whole final text would have to be agreed as a whole. My concern is for the catholic position not to be misrepresented. Xandar 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My points in bullet form:

• The current article claims that "Catholic Church" is the one and only exclusive legal name used by this church
• Per WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
  • The appropriate evidence for this claim would be an official church document
    • Lumen Gentium has been suggested as such an official church document, but
      • It doesn't say anything about legal name
      • No secondary source has been provided showing that this defines a legal name
      • Commentaries by Cardinals and respected theologians on the passage in question use the term "Roman Catholic Church"
      • One might assume such cardinals would use the right term, if the passage in question were a definition of a legal name
  • Whitehead does not support the statement.
  • Madrid makes the claim but does not support the statement with reliable sources
    • It can be reasonably questioned whether Madrid is a reliable source on this point
    • It can be reasonably questioned whether Madrid is a reliable source at all
  • Multiple contrary sources have been provided
• The first 10 words of this article are and have been in violation of basic Wikipedia policy for months
• Nobody is trying to add to the article that "Roman Catholic Church" is the legal name of the church
• What I want in the article is an explanation of the Catholic mistrust of the term "Roman Catholic Church", as described above
  • PA) there are (at least) two meanings to "Roman Catholic Church"
  • PB) one meaning has a sectarian, non-Catholic origin
  • PC) there's a strong body of opinion within the church that the term "Roman Catholic Church" should be avoided
  • This informs the reader of the essentials without getting bogged down in unsupported ideas about legal names. Gimmetrow 00:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

.

Gimmetrow. Your points just don't make sense.

• The current article says "officially known as". It doesn't say what you claim.
  • • Lumen Gentium clearly states what the Church is and what its name is, officially. Hence Official name. It doesn't have to use your set formula.
    • You arbitrarily reject all secondary sources brought forward as "opinions."
    • Your "commentaries" above only use "Roman Catholic" when quoting other commentators. Even if they did use the term it would make no difference. There's nothing about an official or proper name that forbids other names ever being used. As I said earlier; Sandra Doe may be called "Sandy" every day. That doesn't mean her official name isn't Sandra Doe. (Nor does she have to possess a signed statement saying "My Official name is Sandra Doe.")
  • Whitehead supports the proper name of the Church. Your pedantry on use of words clearly seems to hide an ulterior motive. Each word that is available to give the proper name of the Church is unacceptable for some reason. Sorry but that game can't be played for ever.
• Apparently no source is "reliable" that disagrees with your unsourced opinion.
• Kindly list the reliable contrary sources that state Catholic is not the official or proper name of the Church... We're waiting.
• What "basic Wikipedia policy" are the first ten words supposed to violate? (This should be interesting.)
• Your final points on the meanings of Roman Catholic Church are not a problem - if expressed briefly in the note. However they cannot be the only points, or replace the important fact that Catholic Church is the Church's proper or official name. Xandar 02:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Xandar: "There's nothing about an official or proper name that forbids other names ever being used. As I said earlier; Sandra Doe may be called "Sandy" every day. That doesn't mean her official name isn't Sandra Doe. (Nor does she have to possess a signed statement saying "My Official name is Sandra Doe.")" If that's true, then pointing to any use of "Catholic Church" in any official document doesn't mean anything, since the Church may very well "officially" be called something else, or not "officially" have any name, yet still commony use some particular name. Remember, Xandar, that there are non-official sources which explicitly say that "Roman Catholic Church" is the official name of the Church. I don't personally find them persuasive, but given your argument, you need to deal with them. Gimmetrow 02:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitehead does not say anything about legal or nofficial name - he makes an argument about proper name. The article therefore remains in standing violation of WP:V unless you can provide a valid citation. I am also restoring the RFC. Gimmetrow 02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There are more than enough valid citations. It is quite clear what name the Church uses officially. This argument is about something else, isn't it? It's about some people not wanting the Church to be called the Catholic Church. Xandar 02:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but you refuse to accept any and all sources with contrary opinions. This is about basic Wikipedia policy of verifiability. You shouldn't comment on the RFC, Xandar. Gimmetrow 02:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Do the existing sources demonstrate the official name of the church?

Question: Do the existing sources demonstrate the official name of the church?

The question is focused on the first ten words of the article viz. "The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church,[note 1]" and the associated Note 1.

The question comes down to this: Is there an official name for the church known as "the Roman Catholic Church" and as "the Catholic Church". If there is an official name, what is that name?

A ancillary question focuses on the acceptability of "the Roman Catholic Church" as a proper name of the church. No one is asserting that "the Roman Catholic Church" is THE official name of the church. However, an earlier version of this article included the phrase "Roman was rejected" which a number of editors have objected to on the grounds that neither "Roman church" nor "Roman Catholic Church" was rejected as proper names of the church.

Text of Note 1

A recent version of Note 1 read:

The Greek word "catholic" means "universal" and was first used to describe the Church by Ignatius in the late first, early second century.[1][2] Some different Christian denominations not in communion with The Catholic Church describe themselves as "catholic," (see Catholicism), but in common usage it refers to the body also known as Roman Catholic Church and its members.[2] The Church herself in her official documents since the first Council of Nicea in 325 and including the documents of the most recent ecumenical councils, Vatican I and Vatican II, uses the name "Catholic Church".[3][4] According to Kenneth Whitehead, in his book One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic which was used by Catholic media to explain the Church's name to worldwide viewers, "The term 'Roman Catholic' is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, confined largely to the English language."[3] The term is used by the ecumenical organization ARCIC. Originally, it was a translation of Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, apparently first used in place of the earlier Roman, Romanist, or Romish, which were considered derogatory.[5] Within the Church, the term refers to the Diocese of Rome or to the Roman Rite (Latin Rite) which excludes parts of the worldwide Catholic Church that use other rites (see Eastern Catholic Churches).[3]

Case for the official name of the church being "the Catholic Church"

In the interest of keeping this section short and readable, please do NOT rebut arguments in this section. Reserve this section solely for arguments supporting the assertion in the section header (viz. the official name of the church is "the Catholic Church".

• If "Roman Catholic Church" were considered an acceptable name (let alone an official name) bu the worldwide church, it would be used far more often. In fact the name is almost never used (for the reasons given by the First Vatican Council.) It does not appear in the defining documents of Vatican !! Nor in the Catechism of the Church, which uses and reasserts the Vatican II definition of Catholic Church. Roman Catholic Church was indeed rejected for use by Vatican I, and with a few rare exceptions, mostly ecumenical, the Church has continued this policy, the more so since Vatican II. Even in countries where, for legal reasons, "Roman Catholic" was long enforced on the Church, this local usage is declining in line with worldwide policy.
• What some English-language reference publications choose to call the Church has no bearing on its actual name. Wikipedia policy is that the name by which the church self-identifies should be used.
• People keep saying "this is boring", but then they keep on persisting and persisting in trying to wrongly portray "Roman Catholic Church" as being in some way the Church's official name, and to continue to deny that the proper term is the Catholic Church. Most people, even most Catholics, are willing to allow the article to remain "Roman Catholic Church," but because of this, the PROPER name has to be clearly set out. I have no problem with the note saying that the Church has on rare occasions or in certain countries used or tolerated the name RCC. But I balk when attempts are made to imply that RCC is used as an official name by the Church, either by giving Undue Weight to rare quotations, misapplying dictionary headings, or other forms of Original research such as seeking-out single usages in fifty year-old documents. The current note says that RCC is used by ARCIC. I can see no justification for much more other than it very rarely appears in some other documents. Xandar 01:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Whitehead

According to Kenneth Whitehead, in his book One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic which was used by Catholic media to explain the Church's name to worldwide viewers, "The term 'Roman Catholic' is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, confined largely to the English language."[3] The term is used by the ecumenical organization ARCIC. Originally, it was a translation of Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, apparently first used in place of the earlier Roman, Romanist, or Romish, which were considered derogatory.[5] Within the Church, the term refers to the Diocese of Rome or to the Roman Rite (Latin Rite) which excludes parts of the worldwide Catholic Church that use other rites (see Eastern Catholic Churches).[3]

Whitehead is asserted to be an expert source on the question of the official name of the church because:

• 1)Whitehead is the only source used by Catholic media to explain the Church's name
• 2)He is used by the largest Catholic media in the world (EWTN) to explain the Church's name [8].
• 3)The piece is not an opinion piece but an excerpt from a scholarly book used on EWTN's Catholic Answers program to explain to subscribers the church's name.

EWTN is a member of SIGNIS whose board is comprised of at least one representative of the Roman Curia. EWTN is the largest Catholic media outlet in the world [9] [10].

Patrick Madrid

Patrick Madrid says

• • The formal or official name for the church established by Christ is the Catholic Church. ... Roman catholic is actually a term imposed on Catholics from the outside, stemming mainly from Angilcan efforts in past centuries to portray themselves as also truly Catholic,"

American Catholic Social Teaching

American Catholic Social Teaching here,

Lumen Gentium

Lumen Gentium says:

• • 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, 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,

This passage from Lumen Gentium is twice quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Xandar 11:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Case for there being either more than one official name, or no official name for the church

In the interest of keeping this section short and readable, please do NOT rebut arguments in this section. Reserve this section solely for arguments supporting the assertion in the section header (i.e. that there is no official name for the church).

• The current article says "The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church..."
• This effectively claims that "Catholic Church" is the one and only exclusive legal name used by this church
• Per WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
  • The appropriate evidence for claiming that the official name of the church is "the Catholic Church" would be an official church document, as only the Church can determine its official name
    • Lumen Gentium has been suggested as such an official church document, but
      • It doesn't say anything about legal or official name
      • It states in a footnote that in two earlier highly official documents (a profession of faith and a dogmatic constitution on the faith) the Church "is called the Holy (Catholic Apostolic) Roman Church", which contradicts the idea that in this passage it was assigning a single official name to the Church.
      • The phrase "which is governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him" adds to "Catholic Church" the equivalent of the word "Roman" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defteri (talk • contribs) 05:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
      • No secondary source has been provided showing that this passage defines a legal or official name
      • Commentaries by two respected Cardinal-theologians on the passage in question use the term "Roman Catholic Church"
      • if the passage in question were a definition of "Catholic Church" as the legal or official name, one might assume such cardinals would use the right term
  • Kenneth Whitehead does not support the statement.
    • Whitehead frames his argument around "proper name", not "official name"
    • Whitehead largely claims, with supporting evidence, that "Roman Catholic Church" is not used in the documents of Vatican I and II
    • This is quite different from claiming something is an official name, and considerably less controversial
    • Whitehead does claim "The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself". Non-use doesn't mean rejected.
  • Patrick Madrid makes the claim [that "Catholic Church" is the official name of the church] but provides no evidence or sources
    • It can be reasonably questioned whether Madrid is a reliable source on this point
    • It can be reasonably questioned whether Madrid is a reliable source at all
  • Multiple contrary sources have been provided
    • The bishops at Vatican I specifically rejected a proposition to replace "Roman Catholic Church" with "Catholic Church"
    • A bishop at Vatican I argued that "Roman Catholic Church" was a/the proper name of the Church [latin: proprium nomen Ecclesiae]
    • Cardinal Vaughan, under some duress from the UK govt, explained two senses of the phrase "Roman Catholic Church"
    • There are two non-Catholic sources which say "Roman" is part of the "official name" of the Church [11] [12]
    • This makes doubtful the notion that "Catholic Church" is the exclusive "official name" of the Church
    • Nobody is trying to add to the article that "Roman Catholic Church" is the exclusive official or legal name of the church, but the Church's use of this name in official documents demonstrates that the Church has more than one official name.
• The phrase "official name" is ambiguous
  • If it means a legal name, it's possible the church doesn't have one in the sense that The Episcopal Church has a legal name
  • If it means a name used in official contexts, there are multiple such names (of which "Catholic Church" is one of the more common)
• The first 10 words of this article are therefore not supported

• What I want in the lead note is an explanation of the Catholic mistrust of the term "Roman Catholic Church", as described above, including the following three points:
  • PA) there are (at least) two meanings to "Roman Catholic Church"
  • PB) one meaning has a sectarian, non-Catholic origin
  • PC) there's a strong body of opinion within the church that the term "Roman Catholic Church" should be avoided

Gimmetrow 00:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The American Catholic Social Teaching book is used as support based on this quote:

An axiom of Americanism is equal rights for all, fair play, "the square deal," as it has been termed.... The rights of Catholics are the rights of the personal conscience of the Catholic citizen. It is not the Catholic Church in its official name that comes into issue; it is the American citizen, whose religious faith is the faith of the Catholic Church.

The phrase "in its official name" is an idiom; it means the Church as a corporate entity, distinguished from the members of the church individually. It doesn't say "Catholic Church" is the legal name of the corporate entity. Gimmetrow 14:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion by editors currently involved in the dispute

Congratulations to Gimmetrow for this excellent contribution (and also to Richard for his very valuable contribution to producing a non-controversial text). Soidi (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the following should be added:

• It is in the Church's dealings with other Churches that it can be expected to adopt a name to distinguish it officially from other Churches. The names it uses in its internal documents ("the Mystical Body of Christ", "the Church of Christ", "the one true Church", "the people of God", …), as, for instance, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 781-810, are less significant in this respect. In its dealings with other Churches, the name "Catholic Church" is not the name that it most frequently uses.
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a section (751-752) headed "Names and Images of the Church", but neither there nor elsewhere does it single out any name as "official" or even "proper".

If Gimmetrow thinks this should be included above, I would ask him to move it to the proper (good word!) place. Soidi (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

First to respond to what must now actually be Soidi's 400th post on this subject. The Church's documents dealing in ecumenical contexts have no bearing on this. Yet another red herring from this issue's biggest POV-pusher. We, and Wikipedia policy are about using and properly delineating the proper or official name used by the Church in her most formal documents and pronouncements.

Secondly if Soidi demonstrates his unfamiliarity with the Catholic theology of the Church, which deals with its mystical and heavenly elements first. If he had read on to Catechism of the Catholic Church 811-870. He would have seen a complete discussion of the Catholic Church in the world. Section 816, and again at section 870, reproduce, word for word, the official definition of Paragraph 8 of the infallible Apostolic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium, as the central definition of the Church: Namely:

"The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it.... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.

It may not use the wording "the Church is now officially called the Catholic Church", which some people pedantically demand. But neither of course do many other documents that define official or proper names. Xandar 12:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is perhaps best to retire again for a while and not be the occasion for a certain repetitive editor to respond with such nonsense. X, unable to point to a single Church document that declares some name to be the official name (or even any Church document that declares that there is such a thing as a single official name), again repeats that "Catholic Church" has been declared to be the Church's official name in a passage of Lumen gentium that happens to speak of the Church by that name but not by that name alone, and that even mentions as a name by which the Church is called not "Catholic Church" but another name! As I see X has already been told above, the Church is "defined" not as "Catholic Church" but as the Church "which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him". CCC 811-870 does not speak of any name of the Church as official. Indeed, it speaks of the Church as (I quote the title of the section) "one, holy, catholic and apostolic" - not "catholic" only. But X insists that he can see in all this what nobody else can see. Enough. Soidi (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving on to comment on other aspects of the case against "Catholic Church", presented by Gimmetrow above. (My comments in the section above Soidi's comment have been pasted in by someone else, using earlier posts of mine.)

• The whole debate on "official name" is largely bogus, since the people complaining about the use of "Catholic Church" as the official name of the Church, also complained about every other form of wording that was applied to explain the important fact that "Catholic Church" is the proper name of the body that is the subject of this article. This is the more important to define, in line with WP policy, because the article uses the unofficial name "Roman Catholic Church" asi its title. However many other forms of words including "proper name," "actual name" and "formal name" were rejecyed, and a large consensus of editors agreed that "official" was the most value-neutral term that explained briefly and unequivocally the actual name of the Church. A small minority want to suppress this information, and have used a variety of tactics to try to do so. The latest is to be pedantic about the word "official."
• The idea that the Church has no proper or official name, advanced above, is ridiculous. It is clear to anyone who examines the documents and pronouncements of the worldwide Church, especially since Vatican II that the name officially and properly used by the Church is the Catholic Church.

As secondary sources for the wording demanded by Gimmetrow and others, Whitehad and Madrid are expert in their fields and used by the Church to explain its doctrine and beliefs. The best sources for what the Church identifies itself. We also quoted Bishop Ireland in the book American Catholic Social Teaching.

On the issue of "contrary sources" nothing reliable whatsoever has been produced to build a case for any other name, (particularly Roman Catholic) as an official or proper name for the Church. If a bishop at Vatican 1 did indeed argue that Roman catholic was the proper name of the Church, Vatican 1 clearly rejected that opinion and did not use Roman Catholic. Vatican 2 always used and defined "Catholic Church." It has also been demonstrably proved that "Roman Catholic" is a 16th- 17th Century English construction. The two "sources" that claim, against all the factual evidence that Roman catholic is the official name of the Church are extremely unreliable: one being a US Lutheran magazine.

As stated above "Offial name" was chosen as a value neutral term. All other terms put forward to explain the Church's proper name have also been opposed by the same people. The term's use is not "ambiguous" since the term is used as the formal name of the Church in all the major documents, catechisms and pronouncements of the modern Church.

The lead, and particularly the first sentence of the lead is not the place to go into a long explanation of various meanings and origins for the term "Roman Catholic Church", (although such matter could appear concisely in a note.) Such a note, however is no substitute for the necessity of making clear in the first sentence of the lead, what is the proper, rightful, actual, or official name of the Church. I believe that for for sectarian reasons some people want to suppress this information. Hence these constant referrals. Xandar 12:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Xandar here and Richard's comments above regarding reliable sources. I would also like to offer that a very large number of experienced Wikipedia editors considered this same matter and deemed our sources to be reliable and preferred the use of "official name" to any others that were considered such as "properly called" "or" and other such suggestions. Please see [13] [14]. As you can see Gimmetrow and the new account with little input in any other matter, Soidi opposed the vast consensus and have kept arguing the matter ignoring that consensus ever since with a totally new account, Defteri, joining them. I am curious to know how these new accounts have instant knowlege of editing ability and Wikipedia rules and I suspect that violation of policy is in play here with more than a little disregard and disrespect for the unemotional and rational process that led to the consensus votes on the lead text and note regarding the name. I want to also point out that this is the third RFC that has been requested by this threesome since the consensus vote and none of the RFC's produce any different result. NancyHeise ^talk 14:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is still the first RFC, Nancy. Someone inappropriately archived it. The Wiki article currently claims that the Church has one exclusive legal name. When I first questioned this I was expecting to see the evidence. It's been months now, and nothing substantial has been provided. Consensus cannot disregard Verifiability. Just to deal with one of the alleged bits of evidence: The American Catholic Social Teaching book is used as support based on this quote:

An axiom of Americanism is equal rights for all, fair play, "the square deal," as it has been termed.... The rights of Catholics are the rights of the personal conscience of the Catholic citizen. It is not the Catholic Church in its official name that comes into issue; it is the American citizen, whose religious faith is the faith of the Catholic Church.

The phrase "in its official name" is an idiom; it means the Church as a corporate entity, distinguished from the members of the church individually. It doesn't say "Catholic Church" is the legal name of the corporate entity. Gimmetrow 14:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to support your interpretation of "official name"? We have three that say the official name of the Church is Catholic Church and we have none that say otherwise. Of the three that support official name, two are notable Catholic writers, one of whom was used by worldwide Catholic media to explain the name, the other is a Protestant academic in a university press book. We also have these Wikipedia editors who say the references support "official name" and that they prefer to use "official name" because of these refs.[15] [16]. NancyHeise ^talk 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) While I don't personally oppose the argument that "the Catholic Church" is the official name of the church, I do feel that the quote from American Catholic Social Teaching offers no support for the argument. The best support is the Patrick Madrid quote. Referencing Whitehead is sort of an OK argument except he doesn't quite say "the official name of the church is...". Whitehead certainly believes that the prooper name of the church is "the Catholic Church"; he just doesn't say anything about the official name. (Probably because he knows there isn't an officially declared name.) However, the quote in ACST is not saying that the official name of the church is the Catholic Church. The official name of the church is not at all the topic of discussion. The quote is saying that "it's not the Catholic Church acting officially as a corporate entity (per Gimmetrow) that is the issue, it's the American citizen, etc. etc." --Richard (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why the ACST quote is being discussed here because it is not and has never been part of the note in the article text and no one has tried to insert it. Per Kenneth Whithead,

So the name became attached to her for good. By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea's official documents "the Catholic Church." As most people know, it was that same council which formulated the basic Creed in which the term "catholic" was retained as one of the four marks of the true Church of Christ. And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.

This clearly states what the official name used in the official documents really is, not just from the beginning but to the present day. The Church councils and documents produced by them are the most authoritative and core documents the Church posesses. Gimmetrow seems to want to see an Article of Incorporation for an entity that has existed long before Article's of Incorporation were invented and that is WP:OR on his part. Also, we don't really need Patrick Madrid, although he does meet WP:RS, because we already have Whitehead and McClintock. Madrid is the third reference that supports "official" and I am not sure why we have to go to such great lengths to include the phrase when it has already been judged by consensus that the ones we have are sufficient.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyHeise (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia editors have the right and the duty to exercise their critical faculties and weigh the worth of sources. An opinion based on sources in which weaknesses are detected should be given not as an acknowledged undoubted fact but as the opinion of those sources. Not only may this be done: it should be done, modifying the absolute statements at present in the article. Is there any reason why this should not be done? Defteri (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources are not weak. Xandar 15:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A mere declaration by Xandar is no proof of the strength of sources that make evidently false statements like "The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself"; that cite as evidence that "Catholic Church" is the Church's official name a Council that instead strongly rejected a proposal to change "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" and that kept the word "Roman" in the final version of its document; or that merely state their opinion without citing any evidence in its support. Defteri (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been more than adequately demonstrated by various responsible editors that the so-called "reliable" claims of Whitehead are nothing of the sort. Continuing to defend the inclusion of Whitehead's seriously inaccurate claims by invoking "consensus" does no credit to the integrity of this article. It seems that some editors - and scholars (sic) such as Whitehead - prefer a good story to the facts. Afterwriting (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, these respected editors agreed that Whitehead was a good source [17] [18]. Also, we have modified the note to tell Reader that Whitehead is the source used by Catholic media before we tell Reader what he says. Because of the significance of Whitehead's use by worldwide Catholic media, it is a notable statement to include. Not including it would compromise the "comprehensive" criteria as well as excluding a valid POV required by WP:NPOV. Thus, you are asking us to violate Wikipedia policy and you can not reasonably expect us to do that, especially after we recieved the blessing of so many Wikipedia editors at the consensus vote.NancyHeise ^talk 16:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Those who think Whitehead is not a good source are also respected editors, and saying that the source "is used by Catholic media" seems misleading, when "Catholic media" perhaps only means one single communications organization (one that refused to accept oversight by a Vatican envoy) and one newspaper. Whitehead is a valid source for a POV, but not for presenting it not as a POV, but as acknowledged undisputed fact. Defteri (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is not determined by a standard of meeting a POV; that is turning the whole meaning of reliable sources upside down. If you have reliable sources that disagree with Whitehead's position then what we would have is a disagreement among experts and it would be appropriate to cover both. However, I am not aware of any experts that directly conflict with Whitehead's position (I may be wrong here; this thread has gone on so long I have turned a deaf ear to most of it...seems a lot of regurgitation of what has been stated in the past). Are there any or are you using sources that say one and thing that then saying Whitehead can't be correct? Regardless, reliable, expert sources are used to make statements. We have POV; not the source. --^StormRider 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

For sources that contradict Whitehead's statement, see "Multiple contrary sources have been provided" above for two books and one Relator at the First Vatican Council that say that "Roman" is part of the official name, or that "Roman Catholic" is the Church's "own name" (nomen proprium). Defteri (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What one bishop out of hundreds allegedly said 140 years ago is not a "source that contradicts Whitehead", or even a relevant source at all on the official name of thre Church, especially since this individual's view was not upheld. Xandar 01:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it "was upheld". But fine, ignore that. Ignore everything for all I care. Just remove the unverifiable statement from the article, since you have failed to support it. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Gimmetrow 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The media outlets that used Whitehead are not minor or obscure, but the most respected and most watched worldwide media outlets (EWTN who are part of SIGNIS and Our Sunday Visitor) and in fact do receive bishop and Vatican oversight and approval. I think it is very ridiculous for anyone to ask us to even consider not including the only source used by worldwide Catholic media to explain the name. That would be pure violation of WP:RS. Also, the two "source" Defteri points to are not even able to be used by us because we can't determine what they are talking about - they are snippet views of books who could be discussing a topic other than "official name" in the context with which it is used here in the article. For instance, how do we know they are not talking about the "legislative enactments of Protestant England" as Catholic encyclopedia has told us is used for the "official legal name" that is "forced" upon the Church in that one country (but not others). How can we be asked to use a source that none of these editors actually posesses and that we are all stuck relying on a googlebooks snippet view of two sentences that omit the entire context of the discussion? We already have several sources saying "x" is the official name. We also, if any of you has checked, have encyclopedia's other than Wikipedia saying that Catholic Church is the name used by the Church. [19] Also, we have those early documents that Whitehead discusses at the first Council that only use the word "Catholic Church" but never "Roman Catholic Church" as well as those documents of the first and second Vatican council which do the same. We have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Annuario Pontificio with its great lists of Bishops councils, none of whom use "Roman Catholic Bishops Conference" but use either "Catholic Bishops Conference" or just "Bishops Conference". Annuario Pontificio also lists in the very beginning, the heirarchy of the Catholic Church, not the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, in every place we have searched for some official use of Roman Catholic by the Church herself, we have been left wanting. So why do we have this incredible argument over what is the "official name" of the Church? Because some Wikipedia editors want us to violate WP:RS, WP:Consensus in favor of thier personal unreferenced POV and WP:OR. I'm sorry but you have not convinced me that is the most encyclopedic way to go. NancyHeise ^talk 17:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, this has gone on for months now, and the points get made over and over and over and over. I'm just going to repeat one of them now: I don't have a problem with using Whitehead as a source, but Whitehead does not say 'Catholic Church' is the official name of the Church. You and Xandar have refused all proposals for alternative text for months and refused to qualify what is meant by "officially known". Instead you defend a controversial statement which is not supported by sources and you exclude contrary views. In particular, since both Xandar and you reject the view of a Catholic bishop that doesn't happen to agree with your view, you have set a very high standard for reliable sourcing. Therefore, the statement that this church is "officially known as the Catholic Church" should be removed until appropriate, quality sources are provided which clearly say so. Gimmetrow 18:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, EWTN changed its by-laws precisely to avoid Vatican oversight, as mentioned here and here. It is as much nonsense to say that because of its membership of Vatican-recognized SIGNIS everything that EWTN publishes has to be published under Vatican oversight as to say that everything that each of the hundreds of universities that are members of Vatican-recognized IFCU publishes has to be published under Vatican oversight. As for Our Sunday Visitor, it is just one of hundreds of such newspapers. So please drop this attempt to paint Whitehead's opinion piece as having special authority just because two media outlets used it.

As far as I know, none of the Wikipedia editors has asked you not to use Whitehead. We are only asking you to give his opinion as his opinion, not as (practically speaking) dogma.

If what you say were true, that "Roman Catholic" were forced on the Church in one country but not others, who "forced" Pius XI to use it and in what country? who forced Pius XII to use it and in what country? who forced John Paul II to use it and in what countries (plural)? who is forcing the Roman Curia to use it repeatedly today and in what countries? who forced Innocent III to use it and in what country?

As far as I know, none of the editors has asked you to say that the Church's official name is "Roman Catholic Church". We are only asking you to give, as what it actually is, the opinion of certain people that "Catholic Church" is the Church's official name, namely as the opinion of certain people.

As far as I know, none of the editors has said that the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the other writings you mention do not use the phrase "Catholic Church". We are only saying that, even when official documents of the Church speak about the names of the Church (as in CCC 751-752 and 781-865), they say nothing about an official name.

The First Vatican Council, which you (and Whitehead) mention, actually rejected overwhelmingly the proposal to change "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church", and in the final version of the passage that was under discussion still chose not to change the wording to "Catholic Church" and to keep the word "Roman".

There is more than enough evidence to show the weakness of Whitehead's view (if nothing else, the clearly false statements he makes). So, please, continue to use him, but use him as Whitehead, no more than that. What is so difficult about that?

"Why is the Church called Roman? The Pope is the visible Head of the Church and he is in Rome, as is the central organization of the Church" - as this says (slide 18). Defteri (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I agree with Gimmetrow that Whitehead does not in fact say that any particular name is "official". I hope that what I wrote above does not suggest the contrary. Defteri (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow: You are misrepresenting the argument and debate. Far from having "refused all proposals for alternative text for months," editors here have bent over backwards to find an alternative text that makes the clear point of what the proper name of the Church is. However others rejected all alternatives except for "official". The demand that this now be removed and the relevant and well-referenced information suppressed, without proper replacement, is unreasonable on your part.

"Defteri": Your argument remains incredibly weak and unreferenced, and continues (a la Soidi) to confuse two matters: "Roman" is a quality accepted by the Church, along with "One," "Holy," "Apostolic", etc. "Roman" is not, and never has been the official and proper name of the worldwide Church. Therefore bringing up past uses of "Roman" in a descriptive sense, is utterly irrelevant, as well as being Original research. Xandar 21:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow and Defteri, Xandar is correct. We have tried for months to come to agreement with many other editors on use of "official" or not. It was the decision of that vast majority of editors that said "official" was the term supported by the references, including Whitehead who does make reference to the Church's name in official documents of first ecumenical Council Nicea and that same name in the official documents of Vatican I and II. He does not have to say it exactly as you dictate for it to mean what it means and the critical opinion of the vast majority of editors who read the sources chose "official". Your persistent refusal to accept that consensus does not negate the fact that it exists. Your ideas that the Church does not have an official name is WP:OR because no source says that. Yet we have several sources including Whitehead, Madrid, and McClintock who say the official name is Catholic Church. NancyHeise ^talk 23:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Xandar and Nancy, If there ever was consensus for the disputed line, there certainly is not consensus now. Since you have refused to qualify in any way what the article means by "officially known as the Catholic Church" - a statement made in the name of the encyclopedia - so that it avoids misleading, and have rejected every proposal I have made, it is now up to you to quickly make a constructive suggestion, or this gets pushed up the dispute resolution process. Gimmetrow 23:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I would strongly urge you to strike your repeated accusations of WP:OR. Unlike you, I am not seeking to have some view inserted in the article. I am trying to make sure the article - especially its lead sentence - accurately reflects sources and doesn't undermine the credibility of the rest of the article. Gimmetrow 23:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, please do go ahead and push this up to dispute resolution. The consensus stands in favor of "official" and I will paste that diff again because it has not been superseded by your refusal to agree to it. I also have another source for official name Hilaire Belloc states:

"So far I have attempted to answer the question, "What Was the Roman Empire?" We have seen that it was an institution of such and such a character, but to this we had to add that it was an institution affected from its origin, and at last permeated by, another institution. This other institution had (and has) for its name "The Catholic Church."

that excerpt comes from Hilaire Belloc in the book Treasury of Catholic Wisdom page 611 1987 originally published by Doubleday reprinted with permission by Ignatius Press 1995 ISBN 0898705398. We also have Patrick Madrid that has been deemed to be WP:RS who also makes the statement. We have not inserted these as sources but we can still do that. NancyHeise ^talk 00:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

When this alleged consensus formed for "official", were the participants aware of contrary opinions, like that of the bishop of Vatican I which was argued at Vatican I and accepted by the other bishops at Vatican I? That seems fairly significant. You've even rejected the opinions of Cardinals and systematically excluded them from the article. I cannot see how you can reject those views, and at the same time accept Madrid's unsourced and unscholarly assertion. Would you prefer this go to informal mediation (WP:MEDCAB), or formal mediation (WP:M)? Gimmetrow 01:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, you know that Soidi (someone's sockpuppet) brought all the arguments to the table and each one was soundly rejected by all editors except you. I initially took your side because I wanted to reach an end to the argument, not because I cared about the subject. However, I had to go with consensus because it was so evident that the great number of experienced Wikipedia editors agreed on the sources and use of official. Please choose the form of mediation you prefer, I am not the person holding things up - you are. NancyHeise ^talk 01:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please point to where "all editors" "soundly rejected" "each one" of the contrary views. You cannot justify a violation of WP:Verifiability by pointing to a consensus that was based on excluding some views, and then misinterpreting the sources you've decided to accept. The "consensus note" you sometimes point to includes the line "Roman was rejected", and it took months just to get that removed. Who was responsible for that false statement remaining in the article for so long, Nancy? Gimmetrow 02:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, are you going to take this to mediation? I have no desire to rehash this anymore with just you so if you are not going to mediation, I will take it there. FYI, EWTN's editorial staff includes this man [20], a former professor of theology at Aquinas College in Nashville. Other members of their panel of experts included these people [21]. You have no right to refuse Whitehead as a reliable source. I have bent over backwards to try to accomodate your POV without creating a false article but now you are simply requiring just that so I guess we are at the impass stage. Roman was rejected was removed because we removed the two sources from American Ecclesiastical Review but Whithead says the same thing. I just thought that removing it would make you happy. It would be nice if you could reciprocate in that area. NancyHeise ^talk 04:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitehead is a reliable source for an opinion. He is obviously not a reliable source for facts. He gives the opinion that there is only one proper name for the Church and that it never uses the term "Roman Catholic" The Church has never declared that it should be known by just one name, and many references have been given for the fact that the worldwide Church (not just part of the Church) does call itself the Roman Catholic Church: Popes have called the worldwide Church that, the Roman Curia calls the worldwide Church that, bishops call the worldwide Church that. "Catholic" is a quality not only accepted by the Church, but claimed by the Church, along with "One," "Holy," "Apostolic", "Roman", etc. Therefore bringing up uses of "Catholic", while ignoring uses of other qualities for identifying the Church, is irrelevant. (As is obvious, I am echoing your own words.) So by all means use Whitehead as a reliable source for his opinion. His reliability for facts is highly dubious. Defteri (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)