Talk:Catholic Church

reference info for Catholic Church

unnamed refs	274
named refs	147
self closed	50
Refn templates	13
cs1 refs	260
cs1 templates	228
cs1-like refs	69
cs1-like templates	69
cs2 refs	2
cs2 templates	2
harv refs	1
harv templates	1
sfn templates	18
uses ldr	yes
refbegin templates	1
dead link templates	2
webarchive templates	25
use xxx dates	dmy
cs1|2 dmy dates	82
cs1|2 mdy dates	2
cs1|2 dmy access dates	171
cs1|2 mdy access dates	1
cs1|2 ymd access dates	1
cs1|2 dmy archive dates	133
cs1|2 ymd archive dates	1
cs1|2 last/first	88
cs1|2 author	14
List of cs1 templates cite book (39) Cite book (5) cite encyclopedia (3) Cite journal (1) cite journal (7) cite news (24) Cite news (5) cite periodical (1) cite press release (1) cite web (128) Cite web (14)
List of cs2 templates Citation (1) citation (1)
List of cs1-like templates Cite Catholic Encyclopedia (1) cite Catholic Encyclopedia (2) Cite CCC (61) Cite CE1913 (1) cite CE1913 (4)
List of sfn templates sfn (18)
List of harv templates Harvnb (1)
explanations

"Kathuliki" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kathuliki has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 14 § Kathuliki until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Oxford English Spelling

An IP editor suggested specifying "Oxford English" spelling conventions rather than generic British spelling. Which is correct for this article? –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears to already be at least partially to the Oxford standard with "secularization" and other examples. I'm inclined to agree that we should opt for that convention simply because it's already present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The IP was only changing what should be used on the talk page not the article. The article (not the talk page) has been using Oxford spelling for some time. While it may be preferable for the talk page to match what the article uses, I do not see any urgent or important need to require any specific spelling on the talk page. Updated to strike my misunderstanding of the effect of placing the template on the talk page. I learned something new today. — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

In that case, it really doesn't matter. I'm opposed to requiring a particular form of English on a talk page on principle, for what it matters. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Templates on the talk refer (as they say) to the article. No one thinks we should dictate a style of English for talk page posts. It sounds as if we should specify Oxford. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It is already specified as Oxford in the article. — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not have a preference for or against Oxford spelling. As the {{Oxford spelling}} directive was already present in the article, I did an audit back in November 2022 to harmonize its use.

I intentionally left alone and did not change direct quotations and titles for cited references that do not use Oxford spelling. If there are sound reasons for changing those as well, I would encourage a discussion here on the talk page to reach consensus before making that change. — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I have investigated the history of any directive/decision regarding language and spelling to be used in the Catholic Church article. While I cannot claim to have done a completely thorough search, I was able to find most of primary talk page discussions and I identified when directives were added or changed to the talk page and the article. Below are lists of the key edits:

Language/spelling directive changes on talk page

Language/spelling directive changes on talk page 2013 March 3: first time {{British English}} was added to the talk page. (edit summary: "Adding Banner: British English") 2019 January 16: changed the language variety to {{British English Oxford spelling}}. (no edit summary) 2019 May 29: reversion of the 16 January 2019 edit, so {{British English}} was restored. (edit summary: "Unexplained change made against long-standing consensus.")

Talk page discussions

Talk page discussions 2009 December 8: discusses spelling (original edit that started that discussion). No real closure or decision made, but there was an observation that the article now consistently uses the American organization. 2011 February 10-20: recognized mixed British & American use throughout article. A call for consistency was encouraged, regardless of which usage is chosen. 2011 April 30: cited MOS:RETAIN; asserted article initially used British English. Discussion did not reach a final decision, and other editors indicated they did not care which language or spelling should be used, but that it should be consistent throughout. 2013 March 3: Notification that {{British English}} had been added to the talk page on that date. One editor responded to ask why. A third editor cited MOS:RETAIN. 2016 February 9: entitled "Please Vote on Whether to Use American or British English in the Article". It was not a formal RfC. The brief (~1 hour) debate among 4 editors was closed with "Consensus of remaining involved editors is WP:ENGVAR, no further point in discussion." IMO, the debate was a bit strident (lacking in AGF and perhaps uncivil) and given the small # of participants and the short duration, I'm not sure I would support citing it as documenting a consensus. 2018 April 10: protected edit request to change the spelling of "civilisations" in first paragraph of the article to "civilizations" was declined by an administrator with reason: The article is in non-Oxford British English—or at least, the majority of the article is. There are a few places where, for instance, the spelling of recognise needs corrected. That said, since the article is in British English, I see no compelling reason presented to change the spellings to either Oxford British or American. 2018 September 25: request asking that "civilisation" be changed to "civilization". The request was denied with the comment: "The article is written in British English, so the spelling is correct." 2019 May 28: reminder posted that the article is written in British English, "so the more common British spellings and punctuation styles are meant to be used throughout." 2022 August 5: semi-protected edit request to change "civilisation" to "civilization" in the first paragraph of the article. The request was declined with the comment: "The article uses British spelling. The spelling with an "s" is correct."

Language/spelling variety directive changes in Article

Language/spelling variety directive changes in Article 2011 May 19: {{Use British English}} added for first time. (edit summary: "more British spellings, added tag") 2020 April 11: change to {{Use British English Oxford spelling}}. (edit summary: "British English Oxford spelling") 2022 March 13: directive changed to {{Use Oxford spelling}} (edit summary "clean up, typo(s) fixed: from 1942–1944 → from 1942 to 1944"

Significant/mass spelling changes in Article

Significant/mass content spelling changes in Article 2020 April 11: changed the spelling of many words to use Oxford spelling (-ize). (edit summary: "British English Oxford spelling") 2022 November 28: harmonize use of Oxford spelling throughout per the presence of the {{Use Oxford spelling}} directive. (edit summary: "the directive at the top of the article is to "use Oxford spelling". Principally this means the use of -ize instead of -ise endings, but otherwise traditional British spelling and vocabulary. I've made the bold edit to make changes throughout, but if I've got that wrong, made mistakes or want to discuss on the talk page then feel free to revert."

After reviewing the data, I think the following are true:

1. It is likely that the article (including both Catholicism and Catholic Church, which were originally separate articles that were eventually merged) was initially in British English.
2. There is a consistent view in support of British English with -ise spellings, as evidenced by:
   1. Talk page discussions as early as 2009
   2. The {{Use British English}} tag was added to the article in May 2011.
   3. The {{British English}} template was added to the talk page in March 2013.
3. Despite this,
   1. there continued to be mixed usage in the article up until November 2022,
   2. {{British English Oxford spelling}} was added to the talk page in January 2019, although it was reverted four months later.
   3. {{Use British English Oxford spelling}} was added to the article in May 2020 and remains there as {{Use Oxford spelling}}.
4. Oxford spelling was harmonized throughout the article in November 2022 per the Oxford directive in the article at that time. Given the history, that appears to have been a mistake (albeit done in good-faith).
5. While some editors prefer one or the other, many editors do not care, but want consistency.

We can either

1. live with the de facto British English Oxford spelling or
2. revert back to British English without Oxford spelling.

The first does not require any effort other than changing the talk page template, but the second would require changes throughout the article. Since I was the one who harmonized Oxford spelling throughout the article based on the {{Use Oxford spelling}} directive that is still there, I am willing to help revert back if the consensus is to do that. :— Archer1234 (t·c) 04:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Any comments? Absent a consensus on how to proceed, I hesitate to be bold and make a change on my own initiative. So, I guess it will stay as it is, with a discrepancy between having {{British English}} on the talk page and {{Use Oxford spelling}} in the article.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. I don't speak or write British, so it is easier for me if the article remains Oxfordized to make it closer to American spelling. It already uses Oxford English in its current state, and a discrepancy between talkpage and article is untenable; I would just as soon keep it Oxford with a firm consensus going forward. I can't see how anyone benefits from manually reverting to generic British English; it seems to have been an arbitrary choice that was never consistently maintained. The subject is neither definitely considered British versus American that would make it a matter of policy which varient is used. All edits bringing us here were made in good faith based on inconsistent language tags that were overlooked for many months. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• I am going to be Bold and change the talkpage to Oxford English to reflect the current tag on the main article. If consensus says the article should be reverted to generic British, then both the article and talkpage should be updated together. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This article should be called Roman Catholic as the term 'catholic' is not unique to the Roman Church.

The Church of England claims to be not some ‘Protestant sect’ but part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of God. So it is Catholic, but not Roman. This makes the identification of the Roman Catholic Church with the simple term 'Catholic' unsound. Urselius (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Urselius: The Church of England claims to be 'catholic' (little c). This article is about the Catholic (big C) Church. We've had this argument many many times before. The term 'catholic' is not unique to the Catholic Church, but the term 'Catholic' universally refers to the Catholic Church. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 12:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

We should ideally have a link at the top here to the many lengthy talk discussions over the years. I think both titles have been used at times. Fyi Urselius, the Orthodox churches also describe themselves as Catholic, but in normal speech we all know what "Catholic Church" means. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, the Catholic Church also describes itself as orthodox. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 13:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned by Johnbod and Rockstone, this has been hashed out before. The article was named "Roman Catholic Church" for many years before I was an editor but it was changed as, with only marginal exception, "Catholic Church" is the shortest and most widely used common name. Topics regarding catholicity have their own articles, which helps ensures those coming to Wikipedia see this encyclopedia isn't taking a side on what the universal church is. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

We would have to decide if the Eastern Catholic Churches are part of the "Roman Catholic Church". —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 23:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Protestantism as a listed separation?

Hello all! Here on the recommendation of @Jahaza. I was wondering the communities thoughts about adding "Protestantism" as a listed separation in the infobox. I was looking at the Eastern Orthodox Church Wikipage and it has listed the separations from it, the Old Believers and True Orthodox church. Also the Coptic Orthodox Church has it's separations listed, those being Coptic Catholic Church and the British Orthodox Church. A third example is the Assyrian Church of the East which has its separations, those being the Chaldean Catholic Church and Ancient Church of the East listed.

The Catholic Church has a major separation, perhaps more historically significant than the Orthodox Churches separations if we look at it's follower count. @Jahaza brought up a good point, adding Protestantism to the infobox can be seen as a neutrality issue, but if Protestantism originated in another Church I would be saying the same thing. It seems too historically significant to leave out. The biggest problem I foresee is how to add it, because Protestantism is not a Church, but an umbrella term for thousands of Churches all with different beliefs. But regardless, the reformation is a significant event in the history of Christianity, I'd say second most significant after the East–West Schism.

It seems potentially biased to leave it out, because it can give the impression the Catholic Church is perfect, or the "One true church", as it is the most followed Christian tradition, and most influential, even having its own country (the Vatican City). Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, why add that, but not the East–West Schism? Arianism was also important, though there are no real Arians these days. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be hard to label the East-West schism because then we would have to identify which Church split from which, and that will get into a whole disagreement. Because both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics think they are the true original Church of Jesus Christ. You make a good point, we can also add Arianism. Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Compared to other Christian bodies, the Catholic Church has a vast number of separated bodies that came off it. The list, to be comprehensive in any meaningful sense, would necessarily be both unwieldy and non-neutral. It's just not feasible. Also, I think there are two or three leaps required to get from "oh, the separations aren't listed in the already optional infobox" to "Wikipedia believes in extra Ecclesiam nulla salus". ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair point, I am just worried about the significance factor, no other splits had as much influence or reach as the Protestant split. Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, the Great Schism/East-West schism is hugely important, arguably bigger than the Protestant split. The tough thing from a NPOV POV is that both sides claim the other separated. (This is also the case with some of the Protestant groups.) Jahaza (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that is a problem - "separation" is pretty neutral, and very close in meaning to the official "schism". The final act was by the Western church, & I don't think that is controversial either, but "who started it" is not really the issue. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Bolding "Catholicism"

Discussion was around actions of a now-blocked sock. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Cahnc has said that "Catholicism" is not an alternative name for this article and, according to MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, it shouldn't be bolded in the lead. This is incorrect. Catholicism is a popular redirect to this article, averaging 405 daily hits over the last five months; the redirect Roman Catholicism averaged 444 daily hits over the same period. "Catholicism" also regularly is used as a synonym to "Catholic Church" across Wikipedia's article naming, such as Catholicism in the Second Spanish Republic and the innumerable "Catholicism in X" redirects to "Catholic Church in X" articles. Britannica defines Roman Catholicism as the "Christian church that has been the decisive spiritual force in the history of Western civilization". According to BOLDALTNAMES, "Catholicism" ought to be bolded. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC) It should also be added that the WikiProject for topics related to the Catholic Church is named WikiProject Catholicism. Input regarding this is appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC) A set of beliefs and a religious organisation are different things. Neither is an alternative name for the other, even if there are situations in which one could straightforwardly replace a reference to one with a reference to the other. Bold face is used in the first sentence of articles as a simple visual re-emphasis of the article title. What purpose do you think is served by putting this word in bold face in the second paragraph? In what way does it benefit a reader of the article? Cahnc (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC) @Cahnc, the article title Catholicism redirects to this article, so its first occurrence in the article should be bold. We bold redirect targets in articles to help readers find the term that they were searching for and to help convey that they reached the correct target. If you disagree with the various Catholicism redirects, you could bring them up for discussion at WP:RFD. If you disagree with the MOS convention of bolding redirect target terms in an article, start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. Schazjmd (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC) If Cahnc is confused, this article is about both the set of beliefs and the organization associated with them (in Catholicism and much of Christianity in general, these are inseparable components). If there were another article on the largest single Christian religion entitled "Catholicism", then they'd have a point. But that's not the case. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Well, the account has just been blocked as a sock, so that ends this discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Place of Catholicism in the World

I want to strongly complain about recent developments, for first there are too many politicians, they are sometimes minor, but many, who seek Razputin for his Orthodoxal sects, this is not Catholicism, and it is very offensive to Catholics, with its aims, that target, politicians, Western or Catholic, these Orthodoxals are not simply sectarian they are strongly against Catholcism, aim to harm Catholics, in various ways, even economically, they are very harmful economically, but in culture too. Economics and culture are related, but when these economic threads dont take place they start to target with threads people, catholics and polticians. I wont exactly separate the events of the harm against the pope that Orthodoxal homeopaths did, they were claiming things in multitude against him, that eventually harmed him, but even before that the attack towards Berlusconi, for first he was in hospital for a while, but we helped and he recovered, however it seemed that he had enamies, who questioned why or how we were helping him, I see targeting the Pope as a way to target Berlusconi, because it is very difficult for a medician to handle major patients at one the same time, and for those in politics either, because they are related to Rome, what was done made us disoriented in ways, this Russian Orthodoxal, or rather too orthodoxal movements in politics, that are already aiming the West and the catholicism, I am catholic, and I feel pressured, threatened, when I pray, my prayers are heard, but these orthodoxals start to target higher, they aim heigher, they have this politician, according to many, for us he is a priest of anti-Godli behaviour, Razputin, but to add to this, this is not alone evil, to this adds, what they have developed the coronary-arterial falsification that makes people both scared and heartless, this is the result, they are feared of heart diseases and are afraid to make into action to help in Western politics, also we need Catholicism for our dignity as humans, I just want to point out that this time, this attempts against the Rome-Catholic pope were not alone, but they added even more, this what they did is killing of Berlusconi, he was in good health, I sware, in this way they frighten and threaten us, because they hit the politician while the pope is recovering. I want to complain because this is too much for us catholics, also I want to point out that this time no muslims were involved to my knowledge, insteads, these were some homeopaths with their really mean ways, I don't know why they did, but it seems to me like some sort of anarchy, and Orthodoxal sects that are very scary and fearful, they promise to people money, I dont think this is real what they promise, it could be lies, but this are direct promisses for money, they don't do like the politicians who otherwise promis various political changes or improvements, I would like to ask to strengthen catholicism at this point. Thank you for your attention, (and I am sorry for the strange topics I hade to tell you about) Also even in East Europe we are catholics, and we are tormented, even by Ukrainians, I don't know why you in the West support them, they targeted Berlusconi without a doubt, they target us Italian-Germanic management, they are kind of Orthodoxal, that I don't approve, they are not catholics, why you support with money and armor non-catholics of this kind. Before organizations as EU and the US Nato, for first there is catholicism, these are catholic organizations, but you are inviting some Orthodoxals inthere, who are often sectants or with lower morals, as Ukrainians, and that is totally not funny, neither curious, as they are actually harmful, these are not some kind of curious strageries, they are harmful in their ways, and they target Catholicism and those who are managers or in management in Catholicism. --94.155.134.74 (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

We are difinitelly tormented by Orthodoxal sects, but I believe some use the Orthodoxal sects to strengthen Orthodoxals, who become mightier and "with their own politics" that includes discussing Razputin, who is believed by them to be a politician, I am sorry, I dont agree with such believes, that politics is based on such discussions but they torment us here, we are part of the EU, I see some politicians there who claim to be catholic, but they didn't make their politics in catholcism, they returned him, Razputin in politics, we had removed him from politics for a long time, now some Russians are making war on me, I am partially Russian, this is ridiculous, I am Catholic, these people are searching a very immoral ways in politics, with these threads, they are repeating now their threads on politicians, yet, these politicians who are now working in EU, they only say he is very fearful but they grant him politics, I wouldnt agree with that, this is not catholic not even historically true, as he is not a politician, but a sectarian pope, they even greant him money, these politicians now even in front of me granted him money, why should not todays politicians have to answer in front of the catholic church for their actions and speeches of lies, I don't think this is correct that they somehow make their politics without God and catholicism, ther results of their actions are obvious with their investments of anti-godly groups like this one of razputin, once again they financed him in front of my sight, this is very humiliating, the politicians, in countries, in EU parliament, they cannot simply called they parties German Christian" but later not reply to the German Catholic or Protestant church, they reply for their actions to the Orthodoxal Church, is it represented in Germany, is it allowed, I am speaking about Merkel, how she is elected by catholcis to make Orthodoxal sectarian politics, and even now meeting Medvedev, he is Orthodoxal, and bring himself around with Razputin, this is not catholicism, this parties lie to be honest but to whom? These politicians dont give their confessions to the catholic priests, are they afraid to face their catholic or protestant priest after their politics that they have done? If these German politicians are not Catholic they harm also Catholicism in Eastern Europe even more, I see sectarianism among the students in Germany, I am sorry, this is very scary, they know about Razputin and Medvedev, they are not well educated in Catholicism, thats scary. I wanted to complain. --94.155.134.74 (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yet again there are some claims that Orthodoxal sectarians should be full of money while Catholics we should work as slaves for them? I should work for the sectarians who made quarrel with God, himself? You should understand I don't agree with this, and I dont wanna give or promiss any kind of money to such Orthodoxals, now what followed very quickly is claims about the health of me or us catholics that we are against this attempted policy, and this claims are about the eating habits and health, you see how this targets even the pope, I very much hope it does not harm many catholics, these attempts, but these are real Orthodoxal threads and attempt either we should make that they have many money, but when they have they start to make Razputinist politics, that once again bothers us, and makes threads and wars against us catholics, this is indeed an Orthodoxal war against Catholcism, this is going on now very much in Eastern Europe? I have to ask why? --94.155.134.74 (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

War (with people, arms, economic and other social means) against Catholicism in Eastern Europe

US protestantism. I want to complain that US citizens and believers also dont give their confessions to the Catholic Church, and have seperated too much from it, making some ways towards the Orthodoxal believes that they dont understand, they think razputin is some kind of Russian joke, and that they can evoke him? to Eastern Europeans. Now this is not Gorbatchov, so that you can ask him to go to Eastern Europe, this sectarian priest named Razputin is totally not a poltician, and this is a kind of asking for war to happen with attempting to make him popular in Europe, this what americans do is not funny, and in they even have a sectarian president now after this, sorry, Bai Dunnov, Dunov is a sort of alternative health something, but in US this is sectarianism at a presidential level, this is resulted of the lack of education and non report and confession to the Catholic church, this is politically rude to ask that Razputin visit Eastern or Western Europe that some americans do because they are promissed money for this?

Today Eastern and Western Europe are related and they are asking often that Razputin visit Eastern or Western Europe, I see some results in Germany of this "curses", because this is simply a curse, also I don't understand Orthodoxals who say "wait a little for him, Razputin to stay", they built a castle for him very near here to the library, and there are constant threads heard out of there, and they follow some of the treads, they are militant Orthodoxals, to me. They are fighting us catholics, they made several wars against Czecks who are catholics, here in Eastern Europe, these wars made cathastrophic to Czecks who cried in streets, they made me cry yesterday, with these endelss wars against nations that are catholic, and against politicians who are supporting us catholics in Eastern Europe, I cry very rearly. This war against Catholicism here is disastrous. --94.155.134.74 (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I want to say that this war against Catholicism and disrespect towards jewish people who are also not Orthodoxal often, is very real and Americans think this is funny because their Protestantism is not of Europe, according to them, and that if they make Russian-Catholic war they will win eventually, because Americans will win over the exausted by the war Catholics. Sorry, --94.155.134.74 (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The war aginst Czeck catholics in Bulgaria

Now Bulgarians claim that they have elected a Catholic for a politician, but her name is translated to Gavrilova, originating from Gavra, (only in english is Gabriel, but gavrilova mean highest offence), because they want to lie to the West, and the same time believe Garva is exactly what makes same with their Razputinism against the Catholic and Jewish politics. By this they understand that making war on Czecks any moral suggestions from Catholics to them will stop and they can continue and even invite razputinist armies against Cahtolics in Bulgaria? --94.155.134.74 (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)