Talk:Sacraments of the Catholic Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

I disagree with how this page is titled

I disagree with how this page is titled.

Anglicans use the word sacrament just like "Roman" Catholics. Historically, we even have as many sacraments as "Roman" Catholics do as well.

Lutherans and Moravians as well, while they have a different definition of what a sacrament is (and thus believe that there are only two of them), do believe in the concept of the sacrament.

I believe the title should be changed and more information be added in regards to Anglicans and the sacraments and the Lutheran and Moravian concept and views of the sacraments.

I think you're reading the title with a different emphasis than I am. Why would High Church Anglican sacraments (I presume; as opposed to Low Church Anglicans) not go under Anglican sacraments or a subsection of sacraments? No need to change the title of this article; merely add more articles for the various denominations and link them to the Sacrament article. → (AllanBz ✍) 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What a great idea! I shall proceed copying it wholesale. By the way, there are seven sacraments in the Anglican Communion, whether one be high or low. So saith Cranmer and Hooker. Fishhead64 04:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Fishhead, I don't know how Cranmer and Hooker got it wrong but here is what the 39 Articles have to say on the matter:

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. . .Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. (from Article 25)

At least for Catholics, we believe that the seven sacraments are in fact "instituted by Christ" and are in no way contradictory to the Gospel. Anglican claims to observe seven sacraments "just as Catholics do" is an obfuscation of the facts and a betrayal of their own documents which are still published regularly in hymnals and the Book of Common Prayer. --Vaquero100 05:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A sacrament, according to Richard Hooker, is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." A sacrament is not a sacrament by virtue of having been instituted by our Lord, for I rather doubt even Roman Catholics would claim that confirmation or matrimony was instituted by Christ (for example). He performs neither rite nor lays down a formula for their content. A sacrament is a sacrament because the Church has ordained it thus through the activity of the Holy Spirit. Nothing in Article XXV nullifies the sacramental nature of the other five sacraments, implicitly recognised t=by the prayer books through the rubrics prescribing the form and matter of their administration. Article XXV merely classifies sacraments into those ordained by Christ (of the Gospel) and those developed subsequently. Being a component communion of the Catholic Church, Anglicans cannot but help observing seven sacraments "just as Catholics do." That's kind of a circular claim, don't you think? Fishhead64 06:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it is circuitous to say Anglican sacraments are the same as Catholic sacraments because Anglicanism is Catholic and therefore cannot be different from Catholicism. Besides being circuitous, it is just not true. Transubstantiation is the teaching of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist. It is not an option. Memorialism doesn't even come close. From a Catholic perspective such "comprehensiveness" is illogical and fundamentally opposed to our teaching.

Also, "instituted by Christ" is a theological term, not historical. Catholics do not make any such distinctions. If we did, even Baptism would not pass that test on historical grounds. There is no evidence that Christ baptized anyone. "Go, therefore, and baptize all people..." is a much later redaction and almost certainly not apostolic in origin.

--Vaquero100 07:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up Roman Catholic with Catholic. You cannot assert that there is no diversity in Catholicism by appeal to authority or by tenacity: Such diversity clearly exists,as evinced by different practices in the Catholic communions. As to the institution of sacraments by Christ, Anglicans do take an historical perspective as to their origin (I don't know how something that references time, such as "institution" does, can be seen as anything other than historical). But the sacramental nature and validity of all seven is clearly what is the key issue here. Fishhead64 07:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up "Catholic" and "catholic." The Catholic Church, while she does have a variety of diverse liturgical practices, she has never sanctioned a muliplicity of mutually exclusive doctrines. Rather, doctrinal unity is essential to Catholic unity. For instance Transubstantiation cannot both be the teaching of the Catholic Church and not require the full assent of faith. This seems to be the state of affairs in the Anglican Churches in which some hold to transubstantiation and others do not. While the Anglican Communion may claim to be catholic, it cannot claim to be "Catholic" without changing the meaning of the word which it does by the qualifier "Anglican." To use the term Catholic in an unqualified sense would require a complete identification with the ancient church including the primacy of Rome, and doctrinal unity with Rome. Such examples are the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches in communion with Rome. "Catholic" does not mean uniformity in liturgical practices, but does mean communion in the sacramental, juridical and doctrinal senses. Such has also been achieved among certain congregations formerly of the Anglican Communion presently known as "Anglican Use" congregations of the Catholic Church. --Vaquero100 17:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

See my fuller discussion below. Suffice to say, I think it would come as a surprise to members of the Eastern Orthodox communion to hear that their self-designation as the Catholic Church requires them to recognise the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and doctrines promulgated by the Roman Catholic magisterium. Clearly there is a difference of opinion as to what constitutes the marks of the Catholic Church. If there wasn't a difference of opinion, church union would be a reality. Fishhead64 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

misformatted table

The table under "The ordinary ministers of the sacraments" got mangled somehow. Can someone fix it? Michael Hardy 02:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I just glanced as the table, it seems fine now. However, related to this is the word "priest" and "bishop." While in principle I agree with the "user friendly" terms, in some cases it would be more accurate to say "bishop, presbyter" because at other time official documents use the word "sacerdos" which translates as "priest" yet intends both the presbyterate and the episcopate. What do others think?DaveTroy 17:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Anglican Communion

If this article is about the sacramental doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church why does it have an "Anglican Communion" section? I don't see any need for an "Anglican Communion" section. --WikiCats 13:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Possibly because the title of the article is "Catholic sacraments," which is ambiguous. The seven sacraments are the sacraments of the Catholic Church, and they are regarded as such in most parts of the Anglican Communion. Perhaps the article should be moved to Roman Catholic sacraments or Roman Catholic sacramental theology or the like. Fishhead64 16:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew this is where this was going. "Catholic" with a capitalized "C" all around the world refers to the Catholic Church centered at Rome. It is only a minor segment of Anglicans whose POV is that this is ambiguous. So the campaign is to insert themselves wherever "Roman" is missing (in their opinion) from the title. The scheme appears to be to ignore even clearly placed disambiguation references plainly posted at the top of such pages. There seems to be a need to force this issue.

As I have said in other places, each Church has the right to name itself. There are lots of ambiguous names and titles, not only of churches, but of peoples, cultures, regions throughout the world. Clearly the dignified way to deal with this is honor the way a people or an organization names themselves.

Another point that no one seems willing to answer is that the by calling itself the Catholic Church which it has consistently since the early patristic era, the Church is not making an exlusivist claim as the only Church that is "catholic." The Church is very careful not to confuse "catholic" and "Catholic." The credal affirmation is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Those terms are only be capitalized when they are proper nouns, not attributes. So, actually by grammar and by actual practice there is nothing ambiguous about the "Catholic Church." When one wants to make a distinction between the Catholic Church and the universal all embracing church which includes all the baptised, it is proper to express it as the "catholic church," because it is a theological conception, not a real world concrete visible entity. To capitalize this term is POV, it is to make the claim that it exists which is an affirmation of faith not proper to an encyclopedia. As a person of faith I do not doubt that this idealized church is a reality from the point of view of heaven. But it is not even proper modern English to capitalize things because they are in heaven. We do not capitalize the terms "saints" or "angels" unless we are speaking of a particular personage, which of course is a proper noun. This is the point exactly.

The Catholic Church has called itself such for nearly 1900 years. It is an unbroken tradition without material change. To claim otherwise, that is to claim that it must change its name, is to make a claim that this institution broke with itself in some fashion. The burden is on anyone who wishes to prove this historically. In the case of the Anglican Church such a break is visible and verifiable in the break with Rome. This makes it a distinct institution requiring a name change. Such is not and never has been the case with the Catholic Church.

Interestingly, Ignatius of Antioch was an Eastern bishop of a patriarchal see. It was he who gave us the first recorded use of the term "catholic" as well as the "primacy of Rome" which "presides over the other churches." Anglicans can claim that they are "catholic." That is fine. But they cannot force the Catholic Church to change its name just to fit their theology. From a Catholic point of view, "Roman Catholic" is a redundancy for the Latin Rite and an absurdity for the Eastern Rites (e.g. Greek Roman Catholic Church, Yikes!)

To force the term "Roman" is an hostility, particularly with its origins in "Romish," "papist," etc. These expressions of ancient hostilities are particular to the English world and historically verifiable.

Lastly, while the Catholic Church may use "Roman" in particular situations, especially diplomatic ones, as a matter of "charity," to force this usage is anything but charitable. This Anglican prejudice which is patently uncivil seems to saturate WP. It needs to come to an end.--Vaquero100 16:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero100, you impute hostility where, I assure you, hostility is not intended. It is certainly within the purview of any institution to designate itself anyway it pleases. Nonetheless, while there are a plethora of organisations which call themselves the Conservative Party, even the largest, most well-known, and most historic of these claims no primacy in Wikipedia. If you follow the link above, it will take you to a disambiguation page. By the same token, parties espousing a conservative philosophy, such as the United States Republican Party will be desribed as such even without having the term "Conservative" in their title. To me, the situation is entirely homologous.

While I am an Anglican, and the section in question deals with the sacraments in an Anglican context, it is not the only communion which can be described as Catholic. A quick perusal of the dab page Catholic Church (disambiguation) will reveal that many other communions stake claim to the designation. Is their self-identification null? Is Wikipedia about accuracy or popular synonyms? The term Catholic Church already redirects to Roman Catholic Church, and for many (if you review the discussion in the archives of its talk page) this represents a huge concession. It is perhaps a testimony to the absence of hostility that the matter was not pressed to further dispute resolution, e.g., through arbcom. Parenthetically, this article is not about any institution, but about sacraments.

As to the assertion "catholic" versus "Catholic," I know that there is a diversity of use in the creeds and other documents of the Anglican Communion. My Book of Common Prayer (Canada) capitalises Catholic in all three of the creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian) and everywhere else the word appears. It can, and has, been persuasively argued that the cessation of Roman primacy in England did not nullify the Church of England's claims to be a continuation of the Catholic Church in that realm, although I freely admit that there is a diversity of views regarding this within Anglicanism itself. Suffice to say, partly in an effort to counter Roman Catholic claims that Anglican orders were invalid, and to push for the reunion of the two communions, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral was adopted by the bishops of the communion, outlining the four marks which identify the communion as in continuity with the ancient Catholic Church (see Anglican Communion for the wording).

Finally, as you yourself concede, "Roman Catholic" is used interchageably even by the Church itself, especially in ecumenical dialogue, hence the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, for example. Certainly, were the term hostile or pejorative it would not be used in any official context. Wikipedia is not only ecumenical, it is a secular enterprise. Again, I stress, the issue is accuracy - not the pressing of any proprietary claims. Yoyr accustaions of incivility and hostility are, at the very least, unwarranted and misguided. Fishhead64 18:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The solution is simple. Move this article to Roman Catholic sacraments and use Catholic sacraments as a disambiguation page. --WikiCats 06:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiCats, your "solution" plays right into the efforts of Anglicans to divest the Catholic Church of her name. There is nothing ambiguous about "Catholic sacraments." The claim that this is ambiguous is part of this effort. We are seeing this all over WP, but in the real world, this is virtually known outside of an Anglican context. To move everthing "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic" is to enshrine a particular POV of the Anglican Church which insists on a particular usage for another Church not in keeping with that Church's own nomenclature. "Catholic Church" is known all around the world for what it is, the ancient church in communion with Rome. Fishhead has refused to acknowledge the central argument: That the onus is on those who wish to divest the Catholic Church of her name to demonstrate precisely how and when the present Church broke with the ancient. This is impossible. Without such a break, there is no need to change the name. In fact, to change the name only causes confusion and would need yet further disambiguation to explain that while an institution has not changed, it's name had changed because of a campaign on the part of certain others. This of course, would be ridiculous. --Vaquero100 18:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero100, I have acknowledged and addressed what you assert is the cental argument, by reference to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Moreover, the Acts of Supremacy of Henry VIII did not declare a break with the ancient church, but a break with the primacy of foreign bishops in England. Now, it can certainly be asserted that papal primacy is necessary for identifying a denomination as Catholic - but clearly if this were a noncontroversial assertion, there wouldn't be a difference of opinion among the various denominations as to the definition, one which has spilled over here.

What you have failed to acknowledge in any serious way is that "Roman Catholic" does constitute one of your communion's self-designations. To suggest that this is a designation being foisted on these articles by outside forces denies the fact that it is (a) a term used by the instituion itself, especially in dialogue with other denominations, and (b) that it, also, is a term perfectly well understood in the English-speaking world.

The designation "Roman" simply means the Catholic Church in communion with Rome. Your assertion that anything that calls itself the Catholic Church must perforce be in communion with Rome is really a particular POV as well. Even the Vatican recognises that not all Christians see it this way (e.g., again, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission). Fishhead64 05:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming the article

Since someone has seen fit to remove discussion of the Anglican Communion and appended the header clarifying that this refers to the Roman Catholic Church, what would be the objection to moving the page to Roman Catholic sacraments (pace Roman Catholic religious order)? Fishhead64 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No objection on my part. The section on the (Roman) Catholic Church's teaching on the sacraments was moved from Roman Catholic Church to here precisely because some editors were pressing for it (and other sections of the same article) to be hived off to a separate article(s). People should not be directed from the "Roman Catholic Church" page to articles where they would in fact not find what that Church means by the terms in question, but rather someone else's notions. (Just by the way, this article here had the clarifying header before the account of the Anglican Communion's ideas were removed as in contradiction to the heading.) Lima 04:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I repeat my original suggestion: "The solution is simple. Move this article to Roman Catholic sacraments and use Catholic sacraments as a disambiguation page." --WikiCats 11:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I will be bold and do the move and the disambig per WikiCats. Fishhead64 14:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As you may know I strenuously object to the forced use of the term RCC. It is enough to have an article outlining the objections of some to the use of CC and to have an entire article devoted to the topic under the heading Catholicism. However, it is ojectionable to enshrine the POV of some in the naming of the CC throughout WP. I propose moving this article back to "Catholic sacraments."

If this movement persists, then I will "make bold" and move Anglicanism to "Canterburian Anglicanism." --Vaquero100 23:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC) --Vaquero100 23:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather than adopt a title that some will consider grounds for inserting vaguer (if Fishhead will permit this expression) and even contradictory ideas, I prefer an article like this to give a clear exposition of (Roman) Catholic teaching, not a confusing variety of opinions. The use of the not preferred designation of "Roman Catholic" - not preferred, but officially accepted by the Church as a compromise term - is, to my mind, a small price to pay for the ensuing advantage. Lima 04:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with that view. This article is not about Catholic sacraments in a general sense. If it is, its content should reflect that. The issue is not POVness - at least from my perspective - it is ambiguity. Fishhead64 18:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Lima. Don't speak for me. This may be a small price for you, or none at all. Frankly, I don't think you care. But, don't speak for me in whether this is a small or large price to pay. This is precisely the kind of presumption that has got us in this mess. I defy to name one Church whose preferred name is not recognized by WP in its title and other pages. --Vaquero100 17:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Ranking Discussion

I cant imagine having the sacraments anything less than Top importance. They are the life-blood of the Church. Vaquero100 18:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the importance ranking change, this is not an A-class article. There is no image, there are no references, and the article isn't even categorized. I'm moving it back to B-class. Gentgeen 11:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Major actions such as moving an article need to be discussed on the Talk page first. There is also the issue of using Catholic sacraments as a disambiguation page. --WikiCats 02:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. This was discussed not 3 sections up, and the current move was not supported by the discussion. In fact, it is the exact opposite of what was discussed. It seems like one person objected however, and surprisingly, that one person was the one who moved the page against consensus.--Andrew c 21:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sacraments of the Catholic Church → Roman Catholic sacraments … Rationale: Back in May the pages were moved with a 3 to 1 consensus. However, recently, the 1 against editor moved the pages without any discussion on talk. I cannot revert this out of process, against consensus move so I am asking an admin for help. … Please share your opinion at Talk:Sacraments of the Catholic Church. — Andrew c 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support Vegaswikian 02:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Because the article is about the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. --WikiCats 11:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• That's a Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church. Hence the problem. Guy 22:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly support We do not need to be asserting which Christian Churches are, or are not, the true Catholic and Apostolic Church. (And Vaquero100 is a persistent unilateral page-mover, with no respect for consensus.) Septentrionalis 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• SupportAndrew c 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC) As stated in my request. The pages were recently moved without consensus. I don't know why we have to vote to get an admin to revert another editor's move that didn't have a vote.
• Oppose The right of a church to self-definition seems a fairly straightforward concept. Robotforaday 17:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent, so I'll change the content to reflect the sacraments of the Eastern rite church then shall I? Or maybe I'll make it the Anglican rite. Guy 17:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is part of a broader effort to excise the term "Catholic" from Wikipedia, insofar as it is used by the vast majority of both English- and non-English speaking people to refer to that Church of which the pope is head. These people are pushing a POV, and I don't think it's right. --Hyphen5 00:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Several recent votes have gone the other direction. A new consensus is builting based on WP policy. None of the comments thus far have taken WP naming policy into account. Please see this page: CC vs. RCC. The name "Roman Catholic Sacraments" is a violation of WP policies. Vaquero100 07:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Kylef81 12:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support for the sake of conformance. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. According to Wikipedia guidelines, the current name is the right one (instead of the proposed "Roman Catholic Sacraments"). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 14:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose SynKobiety 16:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Merely another effort in the long campaign to deny self-identification of the Catholic Church and to impose the inaccurate, non-historical, POV-label "Roman Catholic" throughout the Wikipedia. patsw 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Alternative hypothesis: merely another effort in the long campaign to stop the Roman Catholic Church arrogating the entire catholic tradition, and in the process stick with a convention that was agreed after long and agonised discussions. There are two sides to every coin. Guy 17:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support. Standardise on Roman Catholic, it is completely unambiguous, avoids the problem of having to have disambiguation links at the head every time because the term catholic has multiple meanings and changes from culture to culture anyway, and is not as far as I can tell considered offensive other than by a small group of activists on a mission. Guy 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lima 04:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• I'm confused wikicats. A few months back you said The solution is simple. Move this article to Roman Catholic sacraments and use Catholic sacraments as a disambiguation page. Now you seem to have changed your mind. Would you mind explaining your reasoning a bit more? --Andrew c 13:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Well, the article is about the Sacraments of the Catholic Church so that's what it should be called. There's discussions elsewhere and I think that the Catholic Church should be called the Catholic Church. --WikiCats 14:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I just want to note that the current article is titled Roman Catholic Church. There is a discussion there whether the name should be changed. This page is not the place to discuss that proposed change. I feel wikipedia should be consistent, and it would be haywire if smaller pages like this could get consensus for CC, but larger articles could not and would remain RCC. Despite all these arguments, Vaq moved the page out of process, against consensus, without doing a move proposal, without even mentioning it on talk. I only asked for admin assistance to revert the move which I couldn't revert myself. If the primary issue involved is the name of the Church in question, then take it to the main RCC talk page (or the /Name subpage). If there are specific arguments about this topic, or a reason why an editor should not be reverted for an out of process move, then please lets discuss that. I'm sincerely am sorry if I sound bitter or bossy, but I strongly feel that the name argument should not be dragged out on every subpage (and that rouge editors shouldn't be allowed to move and change page names at will during an ongoing debate). --Andrew c 23:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• I happen to agree with Vaquero's explanation at: User:Vaquero100/CC vs. RCC and support the guideline: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic. --WikiCats 02:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Andrew c, I understand your interest in consistency. However, we are in the middle of a shifting consensus. We already have conflicting consensuses on other articles which follow the CC format, so it is too late to avoid inconsistency. I would suggest you base your opinion on WP policy and not use the ruse of consistency to attempt to invalidate legitimate discussion and process. Opponents of a name change are having trouble defending their position on WP policy and are using all kinds of ancillary reasoning to discount the conversation and the process. Your comments appear to fall in that category. Vaquero100 07:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is extremely deceptive and in bad form to mvoe a page without coming to talk first. It's fine that there is support for this move. However, you need to vote first, move second, not the other way around. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't personal notes on my talk page accusing me of all sorts of terrible things. If the community supports the move, so be it. But please, do not move pages against a previous consensus without coming to talk first. As stated above, this issues ISN'T about the name of the church, but process. I think it is terrible the name disputes are spilling out onto multiple subpages. As I said months ago, I proposed everyone to stop moving pages and changing names UNTIL the debate on the main page was done. If everyone wants to fight smaller battles regarding the name on other subpages, I'd urge them not to, but I cannot stop them. However, I'd request that they AT LEAST follow process. The worst part of it is, Fishhead and myself and other editors have been scolded by Vaq for out of process moves in the past, and now it seems Vaq doesn't mind ignoring the process when it benefits his position. Next time, vote first, move second, OK? (and if you have any self control, please stop taking the RCC vs. CC debate to other pages. Let the main discussion finnish, and then we might have a consistent policy across the board) Thanks.--Andrew c 16:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a shifting consensus per the above comment, I see a few determined activists on a mission. This article is not about the sacraments in my catholic church, which happens to be Anglo-Catholic. We believe in One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And in my case, not this one, or at least not exclusively :-)

Actually it seems to me that the logical title is sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. 22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:JzG]|JzG]]] ([[User talk:JzG]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JzG]|contribs]])

Comments like this are just the thing to make me vote the other way. When people talk about the Catholic Church, as an organization, there is really no doubt about what they mean. Lima 04:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• When does this vote end? I can't seem to find a mention of when voting will close. Kylef81 17:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• I would say after 5 days. --WikiCats 12:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Isn't it time, and past time, to end this and put it away? Lima 18:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

historical accuracy?

Perhaps someone here will want to discuss the historical accuracy of the article titled penitential? Michael Hardy 03:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1