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
Questioning the accuracy here. The partriarch of Rome was not supreme in the early Church, and simply never managed to assert his authority over the east. The split in churches came about mainly because the pope did not recognise the supremacy of the emperor in ecclesiastical matters, and so should be more attributed to the west than the east, although for the most part it was just a reflection of the differences that had developed between the two areas. On this note, on Christianity it lists the orthodox church as a sort of catholicism - we should probably adopt either separating or grouping them conistently to avoid confusion.
I hope the text reflects your objection now.
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, like Pope's supremacy over general council of bishops, and 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 --
Simon J Kissane
Thanks, Simon. You just provided a good example of how Wikipedia ought to work - general consensus prevails over particularist takes on the world.
We're never going to get a paragraph that satisfies the Great Schism question. They are equally old. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are at base the same thing (I know, I know, I'm simplifying the problem). They are broken apart from each other, and the partisans of each side prefer to blame the other and/or declare that the other is completely invalid and that their section is the TRUE Church. The current Pope, JP II, who has a lifetime of contact with the Russian Orthodox and the Eastern Rite Catholics to draw on, refers to the Catholic and the Orthodox as the "two lungs" of the Church, implying that he recognizes equality or co-dependence or his willingness to talk or something. He hasn't been taken up on the offer very seriously.
--MichaelTinkler
Urgent: someone has apparently vandalized the text on Extreme Unction in the paragraph that begins "The practice of Catholic Church consists of seven sacraments..." I don't know the correct text here and am unable to restore. (27 September 2001)
Did the Eastern rite churches ever use Latin? This is not clear from the text. ---rmhermen
Isn't this a gross oversimplification?
Protestants believe that salvation is by faith alone, while Catholics believe that salvation is by faith and works.
- 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. 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.
What doe strhe year 1066 have to do with the celibate priesthood? From article:
"can only normally be occupied by unmarried men, since too much power was being amassed by families of churchmen prior to 1066." --rmhermen
- I don't believe it has anything to do with it; the West had celibate priests from early on; probably from the 300s as the NCRegister article says. The East had married priests and deacons from early on, as is still reflected in Eastern rite Catholicism and in Eastern Orthodoxy. I'm changing the text to reflect this. Wesley
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.
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. ---
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? Wesley
- I'd put here a brief article that mentions the several creeds, and discuss the various meanings of "Catholic." I'd keep the bit at the beginning here about the various churches that explicitly define themselves as Catholic or have the word in their self-designations. Perhaps the parts about the non-Roman Rite churches who acknowledge the Pope as their head should stay here also. Then, there should be a cross-reference to the new "Roman Catholic," where the bulk of this material seems to belong.
- Sorry I haven't looked at this in so long. That actually sounds like a reasonable proposal. Anyone else have an opinion? Wesley 16:08 22 May 2003 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me. - Cafemusique 00:38 25 May 2003 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the relevance of this passage near the very end of the article (under "History of the Catholic Church"):
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.
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.
I won't delete it myself, but would urge the main contributors to consider either removing it or expanding it. ---Varenius
These titles have certain practical and spiritual authority associated with them, but the Roman Catholic Church considers really three levels of order, Pope, Bishop, and Priests. It is part of Catholic doctrine that each Bishop has a basic independance from each other and all authority except the Pope. This seems to be changing since Vatican II.
The Eastern Catholic rites were the rites retained by those who did not leave the Catholic Church during the break in the 11th century.
I removed these section since they are inaccurate: Eastern-rite bishops are appointted by the Patriarch of the rite, not the Pope; the Eastern rites entered into communion with Rome centuries after the great schism. Efghij
I find it concerning that this text does not mention any of the following:
Isn't it a bit striking that the article is so utterly devoid of links to any potentially negatively perceived facts? But then again, the Vatican seems to be of no importance to Catholicism either, since it is not even mentioned in the article. Saints appear to not exist. And how did the See also end up under "External links"?
Please, this article needs a lot of work. I have put it on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. --Eloquence 23:50 24 May 2003 (UTC)
(The earthly, institutional church is sometimes called the "visible" Church, to stress its unity with the departed faithful, the invisible Church; Roman Catholics do not consider departed faithful the "invisible" Church, but rather those who are saved via "baptism of desire").
This parenthesis doesn't line up with anything I've understood. The distinction between "visible" and "invisible" church is Protestant terminology, inherited from Wyclif and Hus, referring to the difference between the baptized elect and all of the baptized. In the Roman Catholic Church, the church on earth is called "the church militant", and the departed are called "the church suffering" (souls in purgatory), and "the church triumphant" (souls at rest). Mkmcconn 23:48 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)~
All Wikipedia text
is available under the
terms of the GNU Free Documentation License