Content deleted Content added
m trimming off the bit kept in the new, lean 'n mean talk page |
|||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{talk archive navigation}}
In discussing rites, you may wish to add that the Visigothic rite is still celebrated in a very few places, including a chapel in the cathedral at Toledo. - montréalais
Line 9 ⟶ 11:
I deleted this text someone added because it is incorrect and poorly written:
:While number of members seems impresive at first, it has to be considered that it includes everyone who was christen as a newborn baby. Actual number of members is not bigger (probably less) than half of the claimed number. Catholicism is also certainly not an oldest branch. It's roots are in early medieval times (some Asian churches are much older), and the most important dogmas differentiating Catholicism from other branches of [[:Christianity|Christianity]], like [[:Pope|Pope]]'s supremacy over general council of bishops, and [[:Assuption of Mary|Assuption of Mary]] were passed in XIX and XX centuries.
The author that added this also deleted claims of Catholicism being oldest and largest branch; I think it is the largest and one of the oldest (though I would Eastern Orthodoxy are equally old); but I haven't put that back in because maybe it is incorrect -- [[User:Simon J Kissane|Simon J Kissane]]
-----
Line 24 ⟶ 26:
Did the Eastern rite churches ever use Latin? This is not clear from the text. ---rmhermen
----
Isn't this a gross oversimplification?
:It's a gross simplification of both positions. The two groups are much closer to each other on this issue than they once thought, and such a simplification masks a lot of diversity on the Protestant side on this issue. [[User:ClaudeMuncey]]
--------
About celibacy:
The NCRegister at http://www.ncregister.com/Register_News/060602cel.htm
contains this, in part,
But celibacy goes all the way back to Jesus and the early bishops, like Paul, Timothy and Titus. The argument that celibacy was imposed in the Middle Ages to prevent Church property from being handed down to priests' sons is "invalid," said Father Thomas McGovern, author of "Priestly Celibacy Today." (See text of the full interview by clicking here.) From early on in the Church's history, the married men who sought ordination were required to commit to perpetual continence for the rest of their lives, a requirement that was codified in the early 300s, he said.
Line 42 ⟶ 43:
Regarding the reason it's called the '''Roman''' Catholic Church in the opening paragraph: saying it's called Roman because it follows the Roman or Latin Rite would imply that the other rites are not Roman Catholic. As an Eastern Orthodox believer, I would lump all of the rites under the heading Roman Catholic because even the eastern rite patriarchs are still under the Bishop of Rome, Pope John Paul II. I think it's an important qualifier that reflects the history and acknowledges the continuing schism. As Michael Tinkler pointed out earlier on this page, Roman Catholics also claim to be orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox also claim to be catholic, when you get down to what those words mean. In any case, perhaps both the rite and the focus on the bishop of Rome should be mentioned in explaining the name, with attribution, etc. [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 18:29 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)
-----
Shouldn't most of this material be on a separate page for [[Roman Catholicism]], which currently redirects here? Most of it seems to be talking about the Roman Church and goes on to assume that the institution whose head is the Pope is synonymous with "Catholic Church." Most Western Christians believe in one way or another in the [[Apostles' Creed]] and [[Nicene Creed]], which speak of a holy catholic and apostolic Church; "catholic" here simply means "universal," and many Christians do not take them as referring to the Pope and his sect. ---[[User:Ihcoyc|Ihcoyc]]
: I understand the point you're making. If the material here were moved to [[Roman Catholicism]], what would be left on this page? Wouldn't anything left belong on the [[Christianity]] page instead? It seems that the only net difference would be that the article would move to [[Roman Catholicism]], and the Catholicism article would redirect there instead of vice versa. Is this what you envision? [[User:Wesley|Wesley]]
Line 55 ⟶ 56:
I'm wondering about the relevance of this passage near the very end of the article (under "History of the Catholic Church"):
<blockquote>
An interesting period in Renaissance Europe was the Catholic crusade against the imagination. In short, the religious proscription against imagery (except of specifically worshipful religious nature) was extended to include images that one merely imagined in the mind's eye.
Giordano Bruno most famously fell afoul of this crusade.
</blockquote>
Perhaps as part of a broader section on, say, the Renaissance Church this would be worthwhile, but having it dangling as an isolated chunk tacked on the end of the article is rather jarring.
Line 86 ⟶ 87:
Please, this article needs a lot of work. I have put it on [[Wikipedia:Pages needing attention]]. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] 23:50 24 May 2003 (UTC)
I find it concerning that "Eloquence" says she finds it all so "concerning". P.s. - this is not a witchhunt: I too tremble at the thought of lecherous priests charging about and belching fire, as they conduct grand inquisitions into who is thinking what. But then I wake up and remember it was all just romance - pretending things were bad, so that I could have the satisfaction of thinking I might make them better. Good for me - am I not great? Signed: your local Protestant/Atheist/Socialist/European.
----
Line 117 ⟶ 120:
: It may also have been written by a web-savvy child, trying to make sense of things; in which case, milder instruction might be effective. [[User:Mkmcconn|Mkmcconn]] 01:07 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I wrote those 2 paragraphs, I am 21 years old, my IQ is 178. I am impartial and have read all of your remarks. At first I wrote the 2 articles with no proof. Then, per request, I added some factual links for proof. Although I got the 10% statistic from watching dateline, I could not reproduce it in a form that could be confirmed online, so I have removed the percentages, but the rest has stayed. The entire point of this forum is for society to mix factual information with unwanted truth. What I am saying is that this is not an encyclopedia for 5 year olds. This is a forum for people of all ages in every country to learn the truth good == AND == bad. Notice how I respected the article and placed these truthful and degrading comments at the bottom of the article, so not to improperly inflence ones view of the church. If people are to learn of the church, they must also learn of its corruption. I am allowing the ignorant to learn from the truth. If you have any problems with this please understand that I will take your comments with just as much weight as those that would support the tarnishing of the church. Lies and corruption have no place in our new society, so let it go. If you think that by hiding other people's viewpoints you're purifying your religion, then think again. The truth will always show through and god hates the dishonest![[User:Nostrum|Nostrum]] 02:10 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Line 124 ⟶ 126:
I can say what I want. There is no standard to posting information. This program isn't about company policy, it's about freedom of expression, with the limit that the expressed ideas must have a factual standing. So rethink what you say. And if you are angry, then I forgive you child. Jesus would. Oh, and the reason I place this in the catholic file is because I want people to know of every possibility when it comes to searching on information on that subject. Many may not know of such a scandal and therefor won't search for [[Catholic priests' sex abuse scandal]]. Thank you child.[[User:Nostrum|Nostrum]] 02:17 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
: You need to read [[Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines]]. And you need to start signing your posts on talk pages. - [[User:Hephaestos|Hephaestos]] 02:28 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Line 135 ⟶ 136:
:[[User:Nostrum|Nostrum]]'s most recent edits have been NPOV. They are statement of facts. All you and Efghi did was remove information that had links to back it up (on any other article those links would not be needed!). Also, the account [[User:Voiceofreason|Voiceofreason]] was only created during this edit war. I suspect it was made by someone who was involved whom whished to appear neutral while actually removing valid content. I hope that you and others whom have been removing content can edit the wording, rather than just removing what you don't like and blaming it on poor wording. [[User:Mbecker|MB]] 03:43 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The "Catholic Clashes" section is barely coherent. It appers to be about the protestant reformation, which has a brief mention and a link to an extensive article in the preceding paragraph. The "Homosexual Abuse in Catholicism" is less POV than the original and has some good information, but it is the kind of detail that should be in the [[Catholic priests' sex abuse scandal]] article, not here. - [[User:Efghij|Efghij]] 03:54 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Line 142:
I just changed the additions I wrote and I also added comments for the opposite side of the argument. I hope this makes it more NPOV, if you have any more ideas please tell me. Thank you. [[User:Nostrum|Nostrum]] 04:02 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I've added in a section at the bottom about the issue of sexual abuse by clerics. MB's strange comment to Efghij '' if you think that you know more about Catholic Clashes than Nostrum'' there probably no-one on wiki who knows ''less'' on Catholicism than Nostum. His mis-representation of facts would make even anti-catholic preachers like [[Ian Paisley]] cringe. He doesn't know anything about catholicism, doesn't know context, history, what NPOV means, etc. That sort of rubbish belongs in the ''National Enquirer'' not an encyclopædia. [[User:Jtdirl|FearÉIREANN]] 04:08 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Line 171 ⟶ 170:
'''The whole thing is incoherent, quotes facts without explaining what they mean, is littered with incoherent language, show no understanding of even the slightest element of christianity let alone catholicism. Anyone who things Mormons are catholic doesn't know the first thing about either mormons or catholics. As for New Born Christians? Nostrum clearly knows a slight bit about something to do with religion, but doesn't know the most elementary facts, let alone how to express them in an NPOV manner. There paragraphs would make an article a laughing stock if left in.''' [[User:Jtdirl|FearÉIREANN]] 05:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
---------
Line 182 ⟶ 180:
::Congratulations to Jtdril for subjecting himself to critiquing that gibberish! I would never have had the patience to go through that rubbish and point out just the most grotesque of all the grotesque flaws, which is what Jtdril did. I know few educators who would not have discarded that trash after just having read several sentences. -172
[[User:172|172]]
Line 207 ⟶ 204:
Anyone watching the debate for this page can clearly see that 172 was not acting
in intelligent accord. In fact, I would like everyone to input their version, if possible, of my ",garbage," that would be acceptable in the article. If you feel the need to delete it, and since we've wasted so much time, we might as well come to a comprimise. Such sacrifice, editing instead of deleting, horrible. It has even to to my attention that 172 was coherced by himself to protect the page. Clearly guidlines suggest against this, especially since 172 has a non-prominent history on this debate. We aren't here to quabble, only to help, so let's do just that. If you have a problem with the article, submit an acceptable version. I won't stop placing my text in the file until this is done, so basically, I'm forcing you to either live with my version, or get off your bum and make your own from my version. Either way this is about the freedom of information. This isn't a game, and those who feel it is are wasting their time. This is a boring encyclopedia, so wise up or ship out. [[User:Nostrum|Nostrum]] 09:28 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
Many of the details in the paedophiles section are left descriptively vague with references to data on websites, if you feel the need to have a more complete reference before the web content, feel free to add information, not take away.[[User:Nostrum|Nostrum]] 09:35 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
-----------
Line 229 ⟶ 224:
BTW, one asked for protection for someone who isn't a Christian. Well, that's me. [[User:172|172]]
perhaps, but you should not protect it yourself if you are one reverting someone else job. That would be inappropriate. Anthere
Line 245 ⟶ 239:
You seem to make a pleasant, impassioned plea for compromise and cooperation, but then you finish by saying ''I'm forcing you to either live with my version, or get off your bum and make your own from my version.'' - [[User:Voiceofreason|Voiceofreason]]
-------
Line 267 ⟶ 260:
With regard to [[Catholicism]], putting two versions on the page makes it 48K long, and it will be truncated if certain people edit it. Similarly the talk page is approaching 30K and will need to be archived or you will disenfranchise those with browsers that can't edit more then 32K. I think the usual thing is to revert to a version before the edit war started. Two copies of the article in one long page that only some people can edit is not a good solution. -- [[User:Someone else|Someone else]] 12:03 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:Thanks for your comments Someone else. They may help to find a good options.
Line 278 ⟶ 270:
-----
Look - I'm new round here, but... It seems to me that the present situation is very clear indeed. Nostrum's changes to this article (not just the currently disputed one - his entire history of changes) have been so poorly researched and poorly written that 172 simply had no real choice but to revert them. Anthere - you seem to be concerned about 172 "disrespecting" Nostrum - surely on a forum like Wikipedia one MUST make a distinction between editing or removing unacceptable guff from an article, and an affront to the original writer. Else any fool would have to be allowed to add any arbitrary misinformation to any article, and the entire project would be worthless.
Line 297 ⟶ 288:
Upon the request of others, I have now protected the article. As a neutral third party, I think this is appropriate. I'm not even going to READ the dispute, for fear of taking sides on such a highly charged issue. Someone else will unprotect the page when it's time, I trust. --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] 16:03 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:Are you aware that the page has been protected and unprotected several times today ? I *think* that when I put the edit war heading, the page *was* protected. I am personaly wondering whether the page was protected or not when Rmhermen edited it. Also MB has indicated he would want to edit it above. I thought people - even not part of an edit war - were not supposed to edit a protected page. Was it a misunderstanding of the policy from me ? Is that page editable or not editable in the end ?
Line 315 ⟶ 305:
-----
I have removed a small line at the end of the 'marriage' section, obviously appended by a new writer that said
:"DONT have sex without getitng [sic] married!!":
I saw this as preaching and removed it. (WE.Hopkins)
-----
Blah Blah i hate this
== My account number is 9040138192 kadiri Mary palm pay ==
kadirijusti my account number is 9040138192 kadiri Mary palm pay [[Special:Contributions/105.112.212.165|105.112.212.165]] ([[User talk:105.112.212.165|talk]]) 18:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
| |||