Coquidragon (talk | contribs) |
MataHungSook (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
:TopazStar, as I said, Eastern Catholics believe in the idea of transubstantiation, but their theological tradition does not call it anything special, conforming to believing that something happens, and it is a mystery. They also just use the word "change" to define it. There are other differences, for example (and correct me if I'm wrong Eliziium23) as the moment when it happens. In the West, emphasis is given on the words of institution (what Christ said), while in the East, the emphasis is given to the epiclesis (when the Holy Spirit is invoked). On a special note, both events happen at the end of the Eucharistic prayer on each tradition, since in the Eastern Churches (some? all?), the epiclesis comes after the words of institution.--[[User:Coquidragon|Coquidragon]] ([[User talk:Coquidragon|talk]]) 20:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC) |
:TopazStar, as I said, Eastern Catholics believe in the idea of transubstantiation, but their theological tradition does not call it anything special, conforming to believing that something happens, and it is a mystery. They also just use the word "change" to define it. There are other differences, for example (and correct me if I'm wrong Eliziium23) as the moment when it happens. In the West, emphasis is given on the words of institution (what Christ said), while in the East, the emphasis is given to the epiclesis (when the Holy Spirit is invoked). On a special note, both events happen at the end of the Eucharistic prayer on each tradition, since in the Eastern Churches (some? all?), the epiclesis comes after the words of institution.--[[User:Coquidragon|Coquidragon]] ([[User talk:Coquidragon|talk]]) 20:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
:BTW, the different wiki articles on the Eucharist, on transubstantiation, on Eucharistic theology, and on Eucharist in the Catholic Church are very helpful. |
:BTW, the different wiki articles on the Eucharist, on transubstantiation, on Eucharistic theology, and on Eucharist in the Catholic Church are very helpful. |
||
A huge giant thank you for being brave enough to call out the ridiculous change on the introduction. I personally preferred the brief, short, concise introduction taken into consensus many months ago. I think this new introduction sucks. Lichienstien? Closed communion? I understand those things may be correct but they absolutely ramble on and do not contribute towards easier reading. I hope good editors will continue to "shorten" the introduction EVEN MORE and take it back as brief and concise as possible. Of course, move the information to other areas in the article where they should be. This long introduction is both a headache and purely comical at its best. [[User:MataHungSook|MataHungSook]] ([[User talk:MataHungSook|talk]]) 00:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:59, 16 July 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Toolbox |
---|
Catholic name
Guys, really - what is your job?
You don't even have to walk down to the library and touch *pages* any more even! This kind of information is readily available! Why am I constantly asked to prove that the sky is, in fact, blue?!
First three results and the seventh. Plus the fact that it's a fact known for centuries! --173.93.239.247 (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
LOL. That issue has already been addressed before and been solved many times. Your issue is not the term Catholic church, but the term "Catholic". Please see the Wikipedia page for that specific term you wish to edit. And if you have further addendums, make it there. Wikipedia > Catholic. Wikipedia editors are aware that the word "Catholic or catholic" is now being used by other Christians, and even non-Christians... but Google search wins the majority on this one-----which is the Roman Catholic Church. HeartyBowl1989 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)HeartyBowl1989
- Are you really suggesting that a Google search should be the final arbiter in deciding terminology? If that's the caliber of Wikipedia... -- Newagelink (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. I remember an earlier Google search I did years ago for Pierre Plantard. If I remember right, the second page to appear, after our own, was one which conclusively proved he was the Antichrist. Of course, that was a self-published website, but it was evidently a highly regarded, or at least linked to, website. And, of course, anyone who wants to help me
googlebomb the storyneutrally inform the public that my biography by Pixar earlier this year was in fact the greatest artistic achievement of the decade, why, I guess when I'm done, all of you will be forced to believe that too. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)- ??????? Guys, the only reason Google is relevant here is as pursuant to WP:COMMONNAME. No one's suggesting taking random articles from Google at face value for article content...they're using Google hits as a measure of the most common terminology by which people search for information to the Catholic Church, the idea being that if a search for "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church" on Google returns a lot of hits, folks are more likely to search using the same terminology here. Yeesh. Cjmclark (Contact) 21:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed and I think we actually understood that from the beginning. However, if anyone reviews the archives, that point is probably one of the most frequently discussed topic to be found in them. Also, I think the word "suggest" doesn't actually do justice to the nature of the comments in the beginning of the thread. The editor who started seemed to indicate he felt he had to repeatedly prove the sky is blue. I think that point hasn't actually been in question. The fact is that the IP editor seems to have done so repeatedly, by his own admission, without apparently having read the relevant discussions. I am sorry he apparently doesn't seem to think those discussions relevant or significant. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is no point anymore in trying to change the name back, it will never be allowed! Any claim to fix it is just responded with corrupt wiki-lawyering and "The Roman Catholic Church is THE Catholic Church!" from its followers here!75.73.114.111 (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would encourage you to be patient, nothing is set in stone. WP:Consensus can change. However, if you exhibit a poor attitude and make attacks against your fellow editors rather than trying to work with us in a collegial manner, you will not find many converts to your way of thinking. Elizium23 (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- That is the whole problem, to change it back to the correct NPOV form would require literally to CONVERT all the Roman Catholics here to "betray" their religion to stop this propaganda. That is impossible, the only way to change it is to flood this with correctly-minded editors, as was done to change this to "Catholic Church". This is not an attack, simply a observation. 75.73.114.111 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Intentionally flooding an article with like-minded users to change the article to the way you want it would be WP:MEATPUPPETRY and is a good way to get your account blocked. This is not an attack, simply a observation.Farsight001 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- That is the whole problem, to change it back to the correct NPOV form would require literally to CONVERT all the Roman Catholics here to "betray" their religion to stop this propaganda. That is impossible, the only way to change it is to flood this with correctly-minded editors, as was done to change this to "Catholic Church". This is not an attack, simply a observation. 75.73.114.111 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would encourage you to be patient, nothing is set in stone. WP:Consensus can change. However, if you exhibit a poor attitude and make attacks against your fellow editors rather than trying to work with us in a collegial manner, you will not find many converts to your way of thinking. Elizium23 (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is no point anymore in trying to change the name back, it will never be allowed! Any claim to fix it is just responded with corrupt wiki-lawyering and "The Roman Catholic Church is THE Catholic Church!" from its followers here!75.73.114.111 (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed and I think we actually understood that from the beginning. However, if anyone reviews the archives, that point is probably one of the most frequently discussed topic to be found in them. Also, I think the word "suggest" doesn't actually do justice to the nature of the comments in the beginning of the thread. The editor who started seemed to indicate he felt he had to repeatedly prove the sky is blue. I think that point hasn't actually been in question. The fact is that the IP editor seems to have done so repeatedly, by his own admission, without apparently having read the relevant discussions. I am sorry he apparently doesn't seem to think those discussions relevant or significant. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- ??????? Guys, the only reason Google is relevant here is as pursuant to WP:COMMONNAME. No one's suggesting taking random articles from Google at face value for article content...they're using Google hits as a measure of the most common terminology by which people search for information to the Catholic Church, the idea being that if a search for "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church" on Google returns a lot of hits, folks are more likely to search using the same terminology here. Yeesh. Cjmclark (Contact) 21:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. I remember an earlier Google search I did years ago for Pierre Plantard. If I remember right, the second page to appear, after our own, was one which conclusively proved he was the Antichrist. Of course, that was a self-published website, but it was evidently a highly regarded, or at least linked to, website. And, of course, anyone who wants to help me
- Are you really suggesting that a Google search should be the final arbiter in deciding terminology? If that's the caliber of Wikipedia... -- Newagelink (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Please note I never said to do it, I only said that is one of the only ways it would be done, as it was how it was changed to Catholic Church.75.73.114.111 (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Further, if you wish, I can supply you with editors who did flood this article in the exact way you say to change it to Catholic Church.75.73.114.111 (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Has it never occurred to you that you may simply be wrong about the name? Per wikipedia naming conventions, an article name should usually be the most common name used to refer to it. This is, far and away, simply Catholic Church. The big book of beliefs of the church is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and this is the name most often used by the Church to refer to itself. Furthermore, most of the Eastern rite Catholics take "Roman" as an insult, believing that it excludes them. Per wikipedia naming conventions, thus, Catholic Church is simply the name the article should take. No conspiracy theories or watchdogging needed.Farsight001 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- First, your claim that "Catholic Church" is the most common name is false, as evidenced by other users with sources. Second, of course the Roman Catholic Church calls itself the Catholic Church, as to not do so would to lessen its claim on being the "Catholic Church". The Eastern Orthodox Church calls itself also the Catholic Church, does that mean we should call it the Catholic Church? No, it is not an issue it does not matter what the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church calls itself. Now, the Eastern Orthodox Church takes offence to the Roman Catholic Church calling itself the Catholic Church. Who are there more of? Eastern Rite Catholics or Eastern Orthodox? There are more Eastern Orthodox, by a HUGE margin, so the squabbles of the Eastern Rite Catholics should not take precedent over the Eastern Orthodox squabbles. Heck, why would they even be offended, as the article states that "Catholic" here only means "To be in communion with the Holy See" thus to say Roman does not mean the Eastern-Rite is excluded, as it still says CATHOLIC in the name. The concerns of the Eastern-Rite would be valid if the article was just "Roman Church", but if "Catholic" is included, then there is no exclusion as they are part of the "Catholic" in their eyes. The naming conventions recommend not to use titles that evoke controversy when other non-controversial titles can be used. Roman Catholic Church is much less controversial than just Catholic Church. Only one church claims to be the Roman Catholic Church. The only controversy is the Eastern Rite Catholics. What about Catholic Church? Well, MANY CHURCHES CLAIM TO BE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! AND, by naming THIS PARTICULAR CHURCH "Catholic Church" IS MAKING IT DE JURE THE "ONE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH" ON WIKIPEDIA which is the most POV title possible. If it was just Roman Catholic Church AS IT WAS BEFORE maybe this article might even make it back to GOOD ARTICLE STATUS!75.73.114.111 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Has it never occurred to you that you may simply be wrong about the name? Per wikipedia naming conventions, an article name should usually be the most common name used to refer to it. This is, far and away, simply Catholic Church. The big book of beliefs of the church is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and this is the name most often used by the Church to refer to itself. Furthermore, most of the Eastern rite Catholics take "Roman" as an insult, believing that it excludes them. Per wikipedia naming conventions, thus, Catholic Church is simply the name the article should take. No conspiracy theories or watchdogging needed.Farsight001 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Further, if you wish, I can supply you with editors who did flood this article in the exact way you say to change it to Catholic Church.75.73.114.111 (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
One more thing, the Roman Catholic Church also calls itself the "Roman Church" in its catechism. "The Catholic Church is also called the Roman Church to emphasize that the centre of unity, which is an essential for the Universal Church, is in the Roman See" http://books.google.com/books?id=7MQbg9j_sboC&printsec=frontcover&dq=An+Advanced+Catechism+Of+Catholic+Faith+And+Practice#v=onepage&q=Roman%20Catholic&f=false 75.73.114.111 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- My claim that Catholic Church is the common name is false as evidenced by other users with sources? The only sources provided here were google to give an overview of what was more common, and that is clearly just Catholic Church, so I really have no idea what you're talking about.
- As for your claim that calling it the Catholic Church is a "de jure" declaration that it is the one true Catholic Church of God is absolutely ridiculous, and if you had been through past discussions (as I believe someone suggested), we've been through this exact issue before. Why is it that calling it Catholic Church is tacit backing of it's truth, but calling it the Orthodox Church is not tacit backing of it's orthodoxy, or calling it the "Church of Christ" is not tacit approval of it being THE church of Christ? This accusation of tacit approval of a Church's truth based solely on its name is leveled only at the Catholic Church. Sure, the Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself to be THE catholic church, but that is not the Church's name. The Church's name is "Eastern Orthodox Church". Calling this article Catholic Church is in no way a statement supporting its truth. It is just calling it what it's named. Is the band One Republic an actual republic? No. It's a band. but that's it's name, so that's what the article is called. Your argument is absolutely ridiculous and has literally no logical basis whatsoever.Farsight001 (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The word 'Catholic' comes from the Greek word for 'universal'. The Catholic Church is so called because it is present throughout the world and encompasses Roman, Byzantine and other rites. Eastern Orthodox claims to be Catholic, but they broke off from the Catholic Church long ago. They are no longer part of this Catholic Church, and therefore its members are fine having their own wikipedia article under a different name (look it up). They might even be offended if we tried to place their religion under this article. I agree with Farsight, the current article title is fine.TopazStar (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The Orthodox are, in fact, routinely offended to find out that their Church officially calls herself the "Orthodox Catholic Church" in liturgies, and attempt to remove this information from the lede paragraph on that article. They are also unsatisfied by the article name, and requested moves are posted from time to time in an attempt to change the status quo. But so far consensus has supported these names, and posters here are strongly encouraged to search the archives so that conversation here does not go around and around in circles. Elizium23 (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The word 'Catholic' comes from the Greek word for 'universal'. The Catholic Church is so called because it is present throughout the world and encompasses Roman, Byzantine and other rites. Eastern Orthodox claims to be Catholic, but they broke off from the Catholic Church long ago. They are no longer part of this Catholic Church, and therefore its members are fine having their own wikipedia article under a different name (look it up). They might even be offended if we tried to place their religion under this article. I agree with Farsight, the current article title is fine.TopazStar (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Gay Marriage
Hi, I'm new! I think there should be a section in here where it talks about what the Catholic Church says about gay marriage. I know this is controversial, but all that needs to be done is that there be a short paragraph on what the Church believes, because I am sure there are many people curious about it. The Church's public stance on the issue has been clear enough that a one-liner and a reference could say it, and then the opposite point of view could be stated with a reference of its own. I propose the following: The Church holds a firm and controversial stand against gay marriage, because the Church defines marriage as between one man and one woman. (reference: Catechism of the Catholic Church #1601, 1603-1605, 1660) There are some Catholics who disagree with this stand however, arguing that the Church should change its position. (insert reference, perhaps a news article stating this position) Well, what do you think? I know there has been a section on this topic in the article previously, so this is nothing new. 76.101.4.117 (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- A recent edit connected two sentences as follows: The church teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman. Therefore it teaches that homosexuality is instinctively disordered and that homosexual behavior is "contrary to the natural law". I disagree that the Church's teachings on marriage form the basis for her teachings on homosexuality. The basis for the teaching against homosexuality is based on Sacred Scripture and natural law, not on another teaching. It is also synthesis to make this claim without a source that explicitly says so. Elizium23 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is a source present. Also, if it is natural for a man and woman to marry, as the sentence above (with proper sources) outlines, then it must be un-natural if there is something against the nature of marriage present, even in its natural and not sacramental state. Thus it is unnatural for two men to marry, and so on. Also, while you may disagree with the Church's teachings, the above is still what the Church teaches. This is not a forum for opinion, but for truth, and it would be untrue to say that the Church supports gay marriage. If you like, you may add to the teaching with one of your opinions why it should change its position, keeping it neutral of course, as long as you give proper sources to back up your claim.TopazStar (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- What in the world are you on about? Please respond to my concerns as written, not some imaginary opinion I have about Church teachings. Elizium23 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Beg pardon, I misunderstood your argument. The basis for the Church's teaching on gay marriage is both Scripture and natural law, which is also the basis for its teaching on marriage. And because gay marriage is the opposite of natural marriage, one can say that the Church's teachings on gay marriage come from its teachings on true marriage.TopazStar (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- But that is not what you have asserted. Nowhere in the Catechism does it say that the Church's teachings on homosexuality proceed from the Church's teachings on marriage. Yes, the Church's teachings on gay marriage may proceed from that, but that is not what you have asserted, you have asserted that the reason for judging homosexual behavior "intrinsically disordered" proceeds from the marriage teaching, which does not make any sense and cannot be supported by any reliable source. Elizium23 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- But it does make sense. The Church says it is disordered, because it against what is ordered. What is ordered is the natural union of man and wife. Anything other than that, be it polygamy, gay marriage or whathaveyou, is disordered because it is unnatural and against what God planned. Thus homosexuality is disordered because it is against true marriage. TopazStar (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am very glad that it makes sense to you. Now please furnish a source which supports your assertions or you are guilty of synthesis. Elizium23 (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Here you go, my friend: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html#fn9 Specifically, you might be interested in number 4. In Christ, TopazStar (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I do not feel your source is sufficient, and I feel that you misrepresent teaching on sex and marriage. The teachings on marriage are based on sexual complementarity, procreation, and a need for a family unit to raise children, while the teachings on homosexuality and gay marriage come from the same bases, not directly from the teachings on marriage as you are attempting to prove. However, I will leave the judgement to other editors, as we seem to be at an impasse. Elizium23 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I did not say that the teachings on gay marriage come only from the teachings on marriage, but that they come from sacred scripture and are supplemented by the teachings on marriage. That said, I second the motion to leave it to other editors, and I thank you for the debate.TopazStar (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I do not feel your source is sufficient, and I feel that you misrepresent teaching on sex and marriage. The teachings on marriage are based on sexual complementarity, procreation, and a need for a family unit to raise children, while the teachings on homosexuality and gay marriage come from the same bases, not directly from the teachings on marriage as you are attempting to prove. However, I will leave the judgement to other editors, as we seem to be at an impasse. Elizium23 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Here you go, my friend: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html#fn9 Specifically, you might be interested in number 4. In Christ, TopazStar (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am very glad that it makes sense to you. Now please furnish a source which supports your assertions or you are guilty of synthesis. Elizium23 (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- But it does make sense. The Church says it is disordered, because it against what is ordered. What is ordered is the natural union of man and wife. Anything other than that, be it polygamy, gay marriage or whathaveyou, is disordered because it is unnatural and against what God planned. Thus homosexuality is disordered because it is against true marriage. TopazStar (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- But that is not what you have asserted. Nowhere in the Catechism does it say that the Church's teachings on homosexuality proceed from the Church's teachings on marriage. Yes, the Church's teachings on gay marriage may proceed from that, but that is not what you have asserted, you have asserted that the reason for judging homosexual behavior "intrinsically disordered" proceeds from the marriage teaching, which does not make any sense and cannot be supported by any reliable source. Elizium23 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Beg pardon, I misunderstood your argument. The basis for the Church's teaching on gay marriage is both Scripture and natural law, which is also the basis for its teaching on marriage. And because gay marriage is the opposite of natural marriage, one can say that the Church's teachings on gay marriage come from its teachings on true marriage.TopazStar (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- What in the world are you on about? Please respond to my concerns as written, not some imaginary opinion I have about Church teachings. Elizium23 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is a source present. Also, if it is natural for a man and woman to marry, as the sentence above (with proper sources) outlines, then it must be un-natural if there is something against the nature of marriage present, even in its natural and not sacramental state. Thus it is unnatural for two men to marry, and so on. Also, while you may disagree with the Church's teachings, the above is still what the Church teaches. This is not a forum for opinion, but for truth, and it would be untrue to say that the Church supports gay marriage. If you like, you may add to the teaching with one of your opinions why it should change its position, keeping it neutral of course, as long as you give proper sources to back up your claim.TopazStar (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Related to the above, you took a source describing "acts" and replaced the word "homosexuality" in the sentence with "homosexual inclinations". Be careful that you don't accidentally misrepresent the sources. eldamorie (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I sincerely believe that Wikipedia should remain honest, genuine and exact on the teachings against Homosexuality by the Church. To maintain integrity, proper source should be cited and should adhere to the teaching of the Magisterium regardless of popular opinion. This is neutral wikipedia, and the teachings of the church state that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and is against both natural and moral law. Tomlin87721 (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Tom Linden
- If you'd notice, that IS what the article says. The only dispute is to how to frame that information. eldamorie (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Catholic drift
There's been a bit of a tendency by editors of late to state Catholic doctrines as fact rather than opinion, using Church documents/the Bible as references to support them, which carries the danger of reducing the objective, encyclopaedic tone of the page. It's nowhere near as bad as it has been in the past but it's still something we should be aware of I think. Haldraper (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Long time, no look at this page. Still mostly useless. The material during the old tyranny two or three years ago was one sided and far too Catholic oriented, but the term "objective, encyclopaedic tone of the page" is just laughable buddy. I had not looked on here for a while, but the page is still a serious candidate for a BA (Bad Article) award. During the old tyranny (a few, including yourself, may remember that) the page was propaganda based, but was well kept and well presented. Now it is just shamefully unkempt and disordered, e.g. there are two instances of the handing of the keys to Peter (same img) within the page. And much of the presentation is just confused and a few smart 10 year olds could have done better than this. I am not going to edit here, but could you all do us a favor and replace this with someone who looks less confused? And look at the See also section: pretty irrelevant. So overall, a terrible quality downgrade since the tyranny days, if you catch the drift - pun intended. I will not be watching here.... History2007 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- The point of the article is to state what the Catholic Church is, which means it must state what the Church believes, not what other people think or assume it believes. As such, with regard to the material in the article, what the Church believes in stone should be considered as good as fact (since they do in fact believe it), and what individuals think it should change is their own opinion. Those who think the Catholic Church should change something may say so with a reference to back up their point, but cannot dispute the fact that the Church believes things in a certain way. Therefore they should not try to change the facts of the Church to fit their own opinions and agenda. That said, it should still be neutral and the article is looking much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.4.117 (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The entire article is fine in my opinion (besides the terrible title). Should one expect an article like this to be unbiased and critical? It is certainly better than nothing! It clearly portrays the beliefs of the church, there is no distortions of their beliefs I don't see. The article right now is a good summary of the Roman Catholic Church in its view, and at least it has some secular sources to counteract it. I would agree the content itself is getting better, excluding the changing of Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church in the title and in the article as it makes Wikipedia seem like it endorses the Roman Catholic Church to be the "One True Church" when it should not endorse anyone.75.73.114.111 (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The point of the article is to state what the Catholic Church is, which means it must state what the Church believes, not what other people think or assume it believes. As such, with regard to the material in the article, what the Church believes in stone should be considered as good as fact (since they do in fact believe it), and what individuals think it should change is their own opinion. Those who think the Catholic Church should change something may say so with a reference to back up their point, but cannot dispute the fact that the Church believes things in a certain way. Therefore they should not try to change the facts of the Church to fit their own opinions and agenda. That said, it should still be neutral and the article is looking much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.4.117 (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Rambling Introduction
Too many chefs spoil the soup. People have piled so much of their pet topics into this introduction that it is now long, rambling, and difficult to understand. Back in April we had a nice, short, tightly written introduction. Now we have this. It doesn't really matter if the Church is the established religion in Lichtenstein, etc. I am going to slim this down to a size I think is more appropriate for Wikipedia. Feel free to disagree and discuss here. I think we should have a conversation about what truly belongs in the intro. WikiCatholicIndiana (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree strongly, as the previous version of the lede seemed to enjoy a wide consensus here as we all had some input on it, and this one is your own personal opinion of what belongs. Please revert and discuss first. Elizium23 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't been on in a while, so I suppose I am out of the loop. But reading through the talk page, the only part of the introduction that I was aware a consensus had been reached on was the section about Mary. I left this section untouched out of respect to the editors who worked hard on it. ETA I think the intro had some good content, just with the length of it, it would be much better in the body of the article than here ETA if you go through the history, there had been a consensus introduction that stayed nearly the same for about two years. In the past months it has been changed and lengthened. My edit largely mirrors the original consensus intro.WikiCatholicIndiana(talk)
- I also object to the part about the Eucharist and transubstantiation, because that is not a teaching of 22 sui iuris Catholic Churches, only the Latin Church; that is explained in the body of the article, and it was fine before you changed it. The Catholic Church is a complex subject and while I am sure the last lede section could be trimmed a bit, you basically threw it out and started over. Elizium23 (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- You also took out mention of the Eastern Catholic Churches and religious institutes and their spirituality, which was extensively discussed here also. Elizium23 (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with the remark about transubstantiation. I wonder what grounds there are for supposing that the non-Latin autonomous particular Churches reject the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent that the whole substance (reality) of the bread and wine are changed into that of the body and blood of Christ, a change that, the Council said, is fittingly called "transubstantiation". Is the remark based perhaps on an idea that the Council of Trent dogmatized Aristotelian hylemorphism? Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- As I have said before, the Eastern Churches do not reject the belief in the Real Presence, they just won't necessarily call it Transubstantiation, so don't use such a broad brush to paint all the Churches in communion with Rome. Elizium23 (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I still think your statement about transubstantiation needs to be "substantiated" :-). The Council of Trent defined more than the Real Presence: consubstantiation could give you the Real Presence of Christ. The Council defined that there is a change, a real change, and a total change of the reality of the bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ. The Maronite Church declares: "The Council of Trent declared the Church's official teaching on the Eucharist, and used the formula of official teaching on the Eucharist, and used the formula of transubstantiation to express this teaching. The Maronite Church, of course, believes and accepts all the teachings of Councils and of the Church" (emphases added). The Melkite Church teaches transubstatiation, and it quotes Saint John of Damascus, surely a representative of the Byzantine tradition of 14, a majority, of the Eastern Catholic Churches, as speaking of "transubstantiation". (I haven't looked for the Greek word Saint John used, probably not μετουσίωσις, but whatever it was, an Eastern Catholic Church presents its English translation as "transubstantiation".) The term "transubstantiation" is used by the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, according to this parish site and this and more. So what are the Eastern Catholic Churches that do not accept the term? Esoglou (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Elizium23, you seem to be the only person supporting the less precise wording of "miraculously changed" over transubstantiated. Does the Church use this wording in any of her documents? This wording seems to me to have been originally coined by a Wikipedia editor. "Miraculously changed" seems also to be a weasel word; to many this would mean that both the substance and accidents are changed, while to others it means what the Church actually teaches, namely that only the substance is changed. I echo Esoglou in that the Council of Trent was a dogmatic council for the entire Church, not just the Latin Rite, and that its decisions are binding on the universal Church. WikiCatholicIndiana (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am only supporting a more general description of the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the lede (which by the way might be a better way to describe it). I only object to the specific usage of "transubstantiation" without explanation that this is Latin terminology that may be rejected by Eastern Catholics. Esoglou has certainly demonstrated that Latinization is rife in some Eastern traditions. Some even practice Eucharistic adoration! But also read Eucharistic theologies summarised. This book asserts that 'transubstantiation' is a neologism coined in ca. 1140 and introduced in a Western Thomistic context that was not absorbed by Orthodoxy until hundreds of years later, and not without much resistance. As we read in transubstantiation, the Orthodox have myriad terms for this process, and simultaneously, none at all, because many Eastern Christians will simply tell you that it is a mystery, that the Church has not defined the change, and they are perfectly happy with that explanation, as is often the case. Compare and contrast this with the Dormition of the Theotokos and the Assumption of Mary, which when defined as a dogma, the Pope carefully defined it without declaring whether Mary died first or not, thereby permitting the West to believe whatever we want, while the East holds definitively that she did die. The point of the matter is that there is a spectrum of belief that we can perfectly well address in the article body, but the lede must adequately summarise the global viewpoint of all Churches in communion with Rome without excluding valid points of view. Elizium23 (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Elizium23, you seem to be the only person supporting the less precise wording of "miraculously changed" over transubstantiated. Does the Church use this wording in any of her documents? This wording seems to me to have been originally coined by a Wikipedia editor. "Miraculously changed" seems also to be a weasel word; to many this would mean that both the substance and accidents are changed, while to others it means what the Church actually teaches, namely that only the substance is changed. I echo Esoglou in that the Council of Trent was a dogmatic council for the entire Church, not just the Latin Rite, and that its decisions are binding on the universal Church. WikiCatholicIndiana (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I still think your statement about transubstantiation needs to be "substantiated" :-). The Council of Trent defined more than the Real Presence: consubstantiation could give you the Real Presence of Christ. The Council defined that there is a change, a real change, and a total change of the reality of the bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ. The Maronite Church declares: "The Council of Trent declared the Church's official teaching on the Eucharist, and used the formula of official teaching on the Eucharist, and used the formula of transubstantiation to express this teaching. The Maronite Church, of course, believes and accepts all the teachings of Councils and of the Church" (emphases added). The Melkite Church teaches transubstatiation, and it quotes Saint John of Damascus, surely a representative of the Byzantine tradition of 14, a majority, of the Eastern Catholic Churches, as speaking of "transubstantiation". (I haven't looked for the Greek word Saint John used, probably not μετουσίωσις, but whatever it was, an Eastern Catholic Church presents its English translation as "transubstantiation".) The term "transubstantiation" is used by the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, according to this parish site and this and more. So what are the Eastern Catholic Churches that do not accept the term? Esoglou (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- As I have said before, the Eastern Churches do not reject the belief in the Real Presence, they just won't necessarily call it Transubstantiation, so don't use such a broad brush to paint all the Churches in communion with Rome. Elizium23 (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with the remark about transubstantiation. I wonder what grounds there are for supposing that the non-Latin autonomous particular Churches reject the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent that the whole substance (reality) of the bread and wine are changed into that of the body and blood of Christ, a change that, the Council said, is fittingly called "transubstantiation". Is the remark based perhaps on an idea that the Council of Trent dogmatized Aristotelian hylemorphism? Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't been on in a while, so I suppose I am out of the loop. But reading through the talk page, the only part of the introduction that I was aware a consensus had been reached on was the section about Mary. I left this section untouched out of respect to the editors who worked hard on it. ETA I think the intro had some good content, just with the length of it, it would be much better in the body of the article than here ETA if you go through the history, there had been a consensus introduction that stayed nearly the same for about two years. In the past months it has been changed and lengthened. My edit largely mirrors the original consensus intro.WikiCatholicIndiana(talk)
Playing the devil's advocate, although agreeing with Elizium, what the Council of Trent declared a dogma was the Real Presence, not the name. Every Roman Catholic believe in the Real Presence, yet not all Roman Catholic call it Transubstantiation, specifically Eastern Catholics. Dogmas are about ideas, not about names, and such should be the lede.--Coquidragon (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also, since there is an article on the Latin Church, which should address differences in terminology, I also agree that the language in the lede should be inclusive of Eastern Catholics, which means stating ideas, even if it means sacrificing traditionally accepted terms in the West.--Coquidragon (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- What the Council of Trent defined with regard to transubstantiation was not just the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which, as I said, even an upholder of consubstantiation would believe in, but "that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation" (Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, chapter 4); and "If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema (canon 2 of the same decree). That is the idea or doctrine that is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church, of all sections of the Catholic Church, part of "the global viewpoint of all Churches in communion with Rome". Whatever names are given to an idea or doctrine - Theotokos or Mater Dei - they should not be used to suggest that they indicate a disagreement in teaching between the different Churches in communion with Rome. Even the terminology "transubstantiation" is used by the Eastern Catholic Churches, as I have shown. When and where the term was coined is of no more importance than when and where the term "Trinity" was coined.
- Note that I am not saying that the term "transubstantiation" should be used in the lead of the article. I am only commenting on what I consider to be inaccurate statements here on the Talk page. Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, I just read what I wrote, and it has to be that I was very tired. I know that transubstantiation is about how the Real Presence happens to be. I don't know what got into me. Thanks for clarifying Esoglou. Also, thanks for bringing forth the language from Trent. It makes my point about ideas, not names (regardless of my arguing for a different idea). After doing some original research, I've found that even though Eastern Catholics in their theology agree with the "objective reality, but keep silence about technicalities", not using the word transubstantiation when referring to it, they are well aware of the word and it's meaning, and there shouldn't be any problems with using it in the lede, in this instance. Still, my argument stands, when there happens to exist different terminology for Latin and Eastern Churches, the chosen words for this article should be inclusive of Eastern Theology, even at the cost of Western accepted terminology.--Coquidragon (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled about where you think you got information that "Eastern Catholics in their theology agree with the 'objective reality, but keep silence about technicalities'". Perhaps what you read was about "Eastern Orthodox". It is false to say that Eastern Catholics are "not using the word transubstantiation when referring to it": I have given examples above of Eastern Catholics of different autonomous particular Churches using the word "transubstantiation" in their teaching. Again, were you thinking of Eastern Orthodox? Within the Catholic Church, "transubstantiation" is not a term exclusive to the Latin particular Church. Esoglou (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Esoglou, up until now I have been charitable in entertaining your discussion, but I really must object now, based on your topic ban and associated history of POV-pushing Roman Catholic theology against Orthodoxy. Eastern Catholics are "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" and I can assure you that among them, you will find a spectrum of belief and practice, some with latinizations and very friendly to the Roman Pontiff, and others with beliefs and practices more familiar with the Orthodox than anyone else. As Eastern Catholic Churches are all complementary to autocephalous Orthodox Churches, they have much in common with them. I do not deny that some or many Eastern Catholic Churches use terms from the Latin Church and these can be accurate theological terms. But they are foreign to the patrimony of Eastern theology, and your attempt to impose these terms leaves Eastern Catholicism in a "ghetto" and violates WP:NPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the eastern Churches that you call "complementary" reject the primacy and infallibility of the Pope and various other Catholic teachings that the eastern Catholic Churches do profess. If you agree that "some or many" eastern Catholic Churches use the term "transubstantiation", and if you present no reliable source that says that they (or any of them) reject the term, there is in this matter nothing that we disagree on regarding reliable-source-based Wikipedia. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Esoglou, up until now I have been charitable in entertaining your discussion, but I really must object now, based on your topic ban and associated history of POV-pushing Roman Catholic theology against Orthodoxy. Eastern Catholics are "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" and I can assure you that among them, you will find a spectrum of belief and practice, some with latinizations and very friendly to the Roman Pontiff, and others with beliefs and practices more familiar with the Orthodox than anyone else. As Eastern Catholic Churches are all complementary to autocephalous Orthodox Churches, they have much in common with them. I do not deny that some or many Eastern Catholic Churches use terms from the Latin Church and these can be accurate theological terms. But they are foreign to the patrimony of Eastern theology, and your attempt to impose these terms leaves Eastern Catholicism in a "ghetto" and violates WP:NPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled about where you think you got information that "Eastern Catholics in their theology agree with the 'objective reality, but keep silence about technicalities'". Perhaps what you read was about "Eastern Orthodox". It is false to say that Eastern Catholics are "not using the word transubstantiation when referring to it": I have given examples above of Eastern Catholics of different autonomous particular Churches using the word "transubstantiation" in their teaching. Again, were you thinking of Eastern Orthodox? Within the Catholic Church, "transubstantiation" is not a term exclusive to the Latin particular Church. Esoglou (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, I just read what I wrote, and it has to be that I was very tired. I know that transubstantiation is about how the Real Presence happens to be. I don't know what got into me. Thanks for clarifying Esoglou. Also, thanks for bringing forth the language from Trent. It makes my point about ideas, not names (regardless of my arguing for a different idea). After doing some original research, I've found that even though Eastern Catholics in their theology agree with the "objective reality, but keep silence about technicalities", not using the word transubstantiation when referring to it, they are well aware of the word and it's meaning, and there shouldn't be any problems with using it in the lede, in this instance. Still, my argument stands, when there happens to exist different terminology for Latin and Eastern Churches, the chosen words for this article should be inclusive of Eastern Theology, even at the cost of Western accepted terminology.--Coquidragon (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please answer a question? Roman Catholicism has come up with the term 'transubstantiation' thanks to (among other things) the Roman Catholic Saint Thomas Aquinas' examination of the nature of the sacrament in his Summa Theologiae (part III, questions 73-83). The Eastern rites believe in the sacrament, although I am not sure if they expressly follow Aquinas' logic and I do not think they describe it as transubstantiation. What exactly do they call it, and how do they define it? I already tried researching the answer, but was unsuccesful. TopazStar (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Aquinas died in 1274. The term "transubstantiation" was already in use by, at latest, 1079. Aquinas was born in 1227. The Fourth Lateran Council used the verb "transubstantiated" in 1215. Aristotelianism was something that Aquinas was in his time condemned for introducing. Esoglou (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I appreciate your answer. However, I am still curious as to what other Catholic rites call transubstantiation.TopazStar (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- They call it "transubstantiation". See the examples cited here. Esoglou (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you! I checked the sources, and this answers my question. I always knew other rites followed the same teachings re: the Eucharist, and thus the sacrament was valid, but I wasn't aware that they also termed the act of consecration 'transubstantiation'. TopazStar (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- They call it "transubstantiation". See the examples cited here. Esoglou (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I appreciate your answer. However, I am still curious as to what other Catholic rites call transubstantiation.TopazStar (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I started writing just after TopzStar's question, but several edits made it before mine. I'll leave them nonetheless.
- Esoglou, your sources (all but one, St. John's), which by themselves are already enough to keep the word transubstantiation in the lede, are pastoral applications of the Catholic universal theology. What I mean, and here I agree with Elizium23, is that due to their Orthodox heritage, Eastern Catholics care not about the how's, but are happy just calling it a mystery, or saying that a change happens. The Eastern Catholics theological traditions, in general since sometimes they do as you have shown, care for other matters.
- Elizium23, your attack on Esoglou is unfair and untrue. First, he gave you 4 sources to back his claim. Secondly, these sources account for three of the four largest Eastern Catholic churches (only leaving out the Ukrainian Church, for which I add this source[1].) So, according to the stated sources, most Eastern Catholics (which is not the same as most Eastern Catholic Churches) do use the word transubstantiation. He is not imposing anything.
- TopazStar, as I said, Eastern Catholics believe in the idea of transubstantiation, but their theological tradition does not call it anything special, conforming to believing that something happens, and it is a mystery. They also just use the word "change" to define it. There are other differences, for example (and correct me if I'm wrong Eliziium23) as the moment when it happens. In the West, emphasis is given on the words of institution (what Christ said), while in the East, the emphasis is given to the epiclesis (when the Holy Spirit is invoked). On a special note, both events happen at the end of the Eucharistic prayer on each tradition, since in the Eastern Churches (some? all?), the epiclesis comes after the words of institution.--Coquidragon (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, the different wiki articles on the Eucharist, on transubstantiation, on Eucharistic theology, and on Eucharist in the Catholic Church are very helpful.
A huge giant thank you for being brave enough to call out the ridiculous change on the introduction. I personally preferred the brief, short, concise introduction taken into consensus many months ago. I think this new introduction sucks. Lichienstien? Closed communion? I understand those things may be correct but they absolutely ramble on and do not contribute towards easier reading. I hope good editors will continue to "shorten" the introduction EVEN MORE and take it back as brief and concise as possible. Of course, move the information to other areas in the article where they should be. This long introduction is both a headache and purely comical at its best. MataHungSook (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)