Talk:Dogma in the Catholic Church

Untitled

Why is the initial D in the article title capital? Would anyone object to moving this to Roman Catholic dogma, with a lower-case initial d? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, but the other page exists so you need to request it. History2007 (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, but not a big deal really. History2007 (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Tag

There is a clean up tag, but no rationale for what is needed. I do not see a discussion or a need. If reasons are given will add it back. History2007 (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture: Dogma (film)

I suggest that the example of Dogma be removed: as USCCB's review states, the plot is 'based on a false understanding of an indulgence as effecting the forgiveness of sins' and, rather than delving into the whys of dogma, the film is more a showcase for playing with stereotypes. Nahbios (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)nahbios

References

confusing citations

The citations are improperly formatted. I'm especially curious about "Heinrich." Please work to fix them if you can. Sitbunnynow (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I improved the references and some of the quotations but I don't think all the works listed in the Sources section are used. The Commonitory quotes were not correct cited, i.e., wrong numbers and failed Google search for quotation; Dulles, 147 does not seem to cite from a work in the Sources section. I think some content is a translation from another language but not attributed. The article would be greatly improved by adding basic information, for example, from  Coghlan, Daniel (1909). "Dogma". In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company. and by changing to {{Sfn}} style citations. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Examples?

Could someone please add some clear examples of dogmata? A short list would be very illustrating. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.122.28 (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Qualifying second sentence

"The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the basic truth from which salvation and life is derived for Christians." Unless you put an overly generous interpretation on "for Christians", this sentence sounds like it is claiming the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a basic truth. I added "believed" to qualify this, but that is clunky and I welcome a smoother qualification. 173.172.95.186 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think the second sentence is intended to be an example of dogma, but there is no introduction which states this. The second sentence seems like a random fact, with no explicit relationship to the article. 173.172.95.186 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed my clunky qualification and linked the second sentence to the first: "For example, Christian dogma states that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the ...". 173.172.95.186 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as consensus has been established. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 20:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Roman Catholic dogma → Dogma in the Catholic Church – Eliminates the pesky issue of the "Roman" in the title, and is more in line with other articles on things "in" the Catholic Church. E.g., Exorcism in the Catholic Church, Saint Michael in the Catholic Church (note that like this one, it's not about "Saint Michael" per se, but about his role in the Church; this article is not about the dogmata of the Church per se, but rather about the role of dogma in the Church), Vocational discernment in the Catholic Church, etc.. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – Dogma would not be a good name for an article on Catholic dogma, even if disambiguation was not needed. The current title seems better. Dicklyon (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Dicklyon Sure it would be. "Dogma" is a topic in the theology of the Church. If there were nothing else to disambiguate it from, it most certainly would be titled "Dogma". Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Dicklyon Think of it this way: it's not about "[List of] Dogmata of the Catholic Church", it's about "[the concept of] Dogma in the Catholic Church". Actually, "Dogma in the Catholic Church" might even be better than the original proposal. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, that would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Dicklyon Better enough to switch your vote? Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I support the alternative, since Deus vult. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• See, see!! Argumentum ab auctoritate does work!! Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Per WP:NATURALDIS, we prefer to use a title that does not contain a disambiguator if there is one that applies. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • bd2412 "Dogma in the Catholic Church" doesn't have a disambiguator per se. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Would that be better as "Dogma in" or "Dogma of"? bd2412 T 01:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
      • bd2412 "Dogma in". "Dogma of" (which really would be "Dogmata of") would be more appropriate for a list or list-like article, rather than a discussion of the idea of dogma, which this article is. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Move: matches the data model of the title Sacraments of the Catholic Church or History of France or President of Argentina, i.e. the title is structured as the type of thing or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ("dogma") within the range of an organization ("of the Catholic Church"). Dogmata is an obsolete term for dogmas, I think it is a bad idea to include uncommon Latin ⟨tus⟩ suffixed terms were common English ⟨s⟩ suffixed terms exist. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. To correspond with the article Catholic Church. Gulangyu (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Made slight change in wording in heading

I made a slight change in the heading, which had some inaccurate wording in the statement that read:

In the Roman Catholic Church, a dogma is an article of faith that has been revealed to the pope or other church members by God, which the magisterium of the Church presents as necessary to be believed if one freely chooses to be a Catholic.

The wording "revealed to the pope" is inaccurate. According to church teaching, no person coming after the apostles can receive public revelation, including the pope. Private revelations can be received, (like the predictions to the children at Fatima), but they are not binding on the faithful. In crafting doctrine, the pope and councils can only explicate that which they have determined to be contained in the original deposit of faith--the faith apparently given to the apostles to be passed on to future generations. This does not mean that the all aspects of the faith or its implications were perfectly clear in the day of the apostles--that some things they believed needed further clarification and explication in time. When a dogma is defined, it is making something that was there before (that was not clearly or adequatley defined) now clear and explicit. For instance the church has always contended that the doctrine of the Trinity was present in the New Testament and believed by members of the early church, but that it had not been put into precise language (there was no word "Trinity"), and that later led to misunderstandings, so theologians, such as Origin, came up with precise terminology (influenced by the precise kind of wording used in Greek philosophy, i.e. Aristotle) explicating the doctrine with greater detail and precision, to avoid further confusion on a matter that was contended to have been believed by the apostles. The Doctrine of the Trinity was then solemnly promulgated in the early ecumenical councils of the church. The church contends that all dogmas are contained in the deposit of faith, not directly "received" to those coming after the apostles, including the pope. The only two places a dogma can be promulgated is at an ecumenical council or by the pope when he is speaking ex cathedra. So the wording "other church members" was too vague--not just any church members can proclaim a dogma. Also "if one freely chooses to be a Catholic" was problematic, because a person can be excommunicated and not "freely choose" to remain Catholic. So I tidied it up a bit. I also put the ecumenical councils in front of the pope in the statement, because most dogmas have been defined by the councils--I believe only two have ever been promulgated by popes, and the thinking since Vatican II is that while the pope still has the ability to pronounce a dogma, that a council is preferable. I also changed the wording from "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic", since that is the official name of the church, as it calls itself. There are other rites in the church other than the Roman rite--there are the various Eastern rites, which are similar the Eastern Orthodox, but in communion with Rome.The new more accurate wording reads:

In the Catholic Church, a dogma is an article of faith (de fide) that has been solemnly promulgated by the college of bishops at an ecumenical council or by the pope when speaking in a statement ex cathedra, in which the magisterium of the Church presents as necessary to be believed by all Catholic faithful. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: yes, "'revealed to the pope" is inaccurate." I think "Not all theological truths have been promulgated as dogmas" is good clarification too. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dogma in the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027062716/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#88
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120516225514/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm#67
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027062716/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#83

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

"Assent of faith" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Assent of faith and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#Assent of faith until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"Assent of Faith" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Assent of Faith and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#Assent of Faith until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"Full assent of faith" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Full assent of faith and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#Full assent of faith until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)