Talk:Roman Catholic (term)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just added a couple of headings to the article. I thought it might be helpful to use the

Thanks. I am actually just getting started on this article. There is much, much more to write. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

While the article has obviously been well prepared, I think a few adjustments are called for. I start by making what I think is a simple non-controversial edit. The "papalists" (presumably those that the books on the First Vatican Council refer to, most commonly I think, as "the majority") surely had no objection to the phrase "Holy Roman Catholic Church". On the contrary, they strongly wanted the adjective "Roman" kept, and were successful in their aim, accepting only a change in the order of the adjectives.

I leave other adjustments until later. Perhaps someone else can fix the opening phrase of the "Name of the Church" section, which to me seems to lack logic: "Given that the term 'Catholic Church' ... can be traced back to Saint Ignatius ... the ... implication that the Church in Rome was but a part of Catholicism did not please the Vatican". Saint Ignatius certainly did not mean to say that the Church in Rome was the whole of what he called the catholic or universal Church.

Hi, yes, your comment about St. Ignatius is valid, and the easiest way seemed to just leave it as an "info point" for general education in the image box, and delete it from the text to avoid any implications. Regarding the use of "papalists" vs "English speaking bishops" that is an interesting, and perhaps crucial point, to which I have no personal contribution to make. I had two references for the avoidance of the term Roman Catholic that roughly said the same thing, but with serious different implications of intent. One was Avery Dulles, the other, Kenneth Whitehead and both refs are both in the text. But in his book Avery Dulles specifically used the term "papalist party" to refer to those who objected most strongly, and I used that because I thought/think of him as an international expert. Just now, I did a search on Whitehead and he seems to have written a few books too [1] and also seems to know the topic well. Now, I am not sure which one is best to use really. But it will make a difference, as you observed. Do you have other info/ideas? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your solution of the Ignatius problem. I see that the edit that I did make was not as uncontroversial as I thought. I am surprised that Dulles used "papalist" with regard to the First Vatican Council. I had met that term only in relation to mediaeval times and the sixteenth-century wars of religion. Did he really say that the "papalists" wanted "Roman" removed? Surprising. One would think that those who could be described by that name would instead be insistently in favour of the word "Roman". And who were they? I thought that those who might be given that name - those who were also called Ultramontane - were a majority in the Council. It was a small minority that proposed eliminating the word "Roman": "Der Vorschlag einer Konzilsminderheit, das Wörtchen »römisch« zu verstreichen, wurde abgelehnt" (Richard Faber. Katholizismus in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 2005, page 42). Their proposal was rejected quite overwhelmingly: those who stood up to indicate support were extremely few; those who stood up to signify rejection were almost the whole body (Theodorus Granderath. Constitutiones Dogmaticae Sancrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani. (Herder 1892) page 5). An account in English by H.G. Hughes, published on pages 241 to 255 of the American Ecclesiastical Review in September 1902 is available in various formats here. That it was the English-speaking bishops who objected to "ecclesia romana catholica" is stated in Appunti storici sopra il Concilio Vaticano. A book published in English in the 1950s went into great detail about the part played in the Council by the English bishops, especially in this regard, but I don't remember the author or the title. I find on Google Books Cwiekowski's The English Bishops and the First Vatican Council, but the date given for that is 1971.

Lima (talk

) 21:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Dulles book is online at Google books, if you want to check. The letter against Branch theory paragraph was also from the same book. I am not sure what to do and I think 95% of Wikipedia readers would not mind either papalist or English bishops in the text. Another solution is not to say who objected, just say there weer objections. But I do understand the logic of objection of the papalists in that they assumed they had a claim to the whole Church anyway. But perhaps this is not such a big point to debate. Eitehr way is ok with me. Cheers History2007 (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed the Dulles book on Google Books. I now remember seeing it there some time last year. It does of course say what you attribute to it. The expression I used above was of surprise, not of denial that Dulles did write it. But what he wrote is puzzling. One would think that the claim of the "papalists" to the whole Church would be better served by calling the Church Roman than by omitting the word "Roman"; and Dulles wrote that, as a result of the eventual inclusion of the word, some (papalists, surely) wondered whether "Roman" should be added as a fifth "mark" of the Church in addition to "one, holy, catholic and apostolic", which would mean that anyone to whom the word "Roman" could not be applied would be outside the Church. The proposal to omit the word "Roman" was clearly a minority proposal, and the 1950s book, which I cannot identify, dealt in great detail with the discussion on this matter and considered as proof that the minority was sometimes listened to the eventual acceptance by the majority of a change in the text of the original draft. Under the heading "The Parties", the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the (First) Vatican Council, speaks of the "majority" and "minority" parties: the bishops that it mentions as members of the majority party would certainly be considered "papalists". Googling "Vatican Council" "minority" "majority" shows that the classification of the participants in the Council as members of the "majority" and the "minority" parties, with the "majority" pushing for the definition of papal infallibility (papalists, surely) and the "minority" opposing it, is extremely common. So to have Dulles say that it was the "papalist party" that wanted to change the phrase in the draft is indeed puzzling.

Lima (talk

) 08:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So it is best that you think and decide what the best edit is. Again, 95% od Wiki-readers will not even notice this, so no big deal probably. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Is my edit OK? I have also retouched the statement about the Second Vatican Council: the book by Dulles is far more precise than the argumentative article by Whitehead (which even makes the clearly false claim that "The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself") about what the Second Vatican Council did say.

Lima (talk

) 21:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• I guess 80% of Wikipedia readers under 35 will probably not know what a circumlocution is. In general, sadly, if we are to educate readers who are used to the language of Entertainment Tonight more than Vatican II documents, we need to use lighter language else we will lose them in mid-sentence.

Else, I think it was a good capture from the Dulles book. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the new change looks fine now, and easier to read. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lima,

• I think your changes to Currant usage are technically correct. But the sentence structure is pretty heavy and really needs to be simplified, else will lose many readers in mid-paragraph. Could you lighten that up please?

• About civil disobid. vs Pope I checked that reference carefully.

Cheers. History2007 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I will try to lighten the section on current usage. One reason for its heaviness was an attempt to preserve as much as possible of the preceding text while adjusting some peculiar statements such as that a 1994 document by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament was its "latest"!

Could you give me an Internet link to your reference "Tobias Smollett, 1807, Annals of literature, Volume 11 Published by Pickering & Chatto, London, page 104"? I find it difficult to interpret, in part because, as you know, Tobias Smollett died in 1771. Was it Smollett who claimed (obviously not in the early 19th century) that "British Roman Catholics had largely agreed to forgo their submission to the Pope in matters that involved civil disobedience to the English sovereign". The implications of that statement are no more believable than an opinion about Roman Catholics that I found reported, and decried, in the 1817 Annals of Literature.

Lima (talk

) 09:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Smollett book is also on Google books. I am no expert on the topic (yet, but maybe as we write this that will change over a year) however I think in the context of the Popish Plot, and the Irish conflicts, Catholics were viewed with suspicion at that time. Hence the declaration by Smolett that they had alleged their support in civil matters. I also added the Lisa McClain ref now that includes the statement by Catholic priests recognizing the English sovereign as their temporal prince in the event of a papal invasion, but including more text on that will make this an article on English history, not the term Roman Catholic. I think people no longer fear that Ratzinger will invade England with all his Cardinals next week, but those fears existed a few centuries ago. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have at last found The Critical Review, Series III, Volume XI, May 1807, page 104 (here). It is not a "Smollett book", since Tobias Smollett had died 36 years earlier. Putting his name into my search box may be one of the reasons why I found it so hard to trace the publication. The writer of page 104, whoever he was, is giving his opinion in contrast to the opinions of two other people. He is not a historian. He probably would not qualify as a Wikipedia reliable source.

I will attend to the other matter (lightness) tomorrow.

Lima (talk

) 20:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but we actually don't know if the review was by a historian or not. Anyway, Lisa McClain makes the same point about disobedience, and there were other refs too for the same fact, but I did not bother to list them all. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

McClain speaks about the situation in the years immediately before and after 1600, under Elizabeth and James I of England. These were opposed even politically by the Popes, though not, as McClain recounts, by all English Catholics. The situation had changed radically long before the nineteenth century. Even the immediate successor of James, Charles I, was implicitly recognized by Rome as King of England. And Charles's second son, James II, was actually a Catholic. And the notion among certain Protestants that Roman Catholics were disloyal and rebellious did not end in the early nineteenth century. Popular anti-Catholicism in Mid-Victorian England by Denis G. Paz documents it for later in the same century. The notion seems to persist even today in some quarters, not only in Northern Ireland.

Lima (talk

) 11:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As you know, in many cases, "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" are used interchangeably. In some cases, however, the adjective "Roman" is needed for clarity. As you may know, Bishop Martino of Scranton resigned today. "http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/20090901_Scranton_bishop_resigns__citing_tensions.html O'Reilly, David. Scranton bishop resigns, citing tensions. philly.com, Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Newspapers LLC. Sept. 1, 2009. Retrieved 2009-09-01." The article says Cardinal Rigali "will continue to lead the nearly 1.5 million-member Philadelphia archdiocese while serving as Scranton's temporary 'apostolic administrator.' He is senior bishop, or metropolitan, of Pennsylvania's 10 Catholic dioceses." (Emphasis added.) Actually, he is not metropolitan of the state's 10 Catholic dioceses. He is metropolitan only of its 8 "Roman Catholic" dioceses, which together constitute the

If these facts are simplified, they may make a good subsection in the article to show how namings actually take place. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case "Roman" is not required. The proper technical term is "

Lima (talk

) 11:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That brings me to my general problem with theological writings in Wikipedia and elsewhere. In many cases they are real instances of "write only text". Those in the semi-conductor world may remember write only memory which is written but never read. My view is that many theological texts are written by the theologians for the theologians and are "write only text" as far as the public is concerned. The only solution will be to have a section on scholarly use where the technical details can be used, and the public can skim over that, then read the "popular use" section.

This article started because I found the discussion of the term Roman Catholic on the talk page for Catholic Church to be a great definition of the phenomenon of chaos. My intention was to write a page to make it clearly accessible to the "general Wikipedia reader". We still have a long way to go in clarity to achieve that goal and the section split now seems mandatory. History2007 (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see how the two quotations from Varacalli (the first from page 127, the second from page 128) lead to the conclusion: "The term 'Roman Catholic' is at times used in popular literature and discourse to refer to the members of the Western Church alone". I don't think Varacalli's book is popular literature. This is surely an instance of scholarly, not popular, usage.

Besides, the first quotation shows Varacalli referring to the Roman Rite Mass as the Roman Catholic Mass, not equating "Roman Catholic" with "Western Catholic": Ambrosian Catholics are also members of the Western Church, but they don't use the Roman Rite Mass. The second quotation has been shorn of the words that indicate that Varacalli sometimes considers "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" to be synonymous: "There are more than a few Roman Catholics in America who 'turned off' by the thinning out of the Latin liturgy by 'progressive' Catholic clergy, are attending, and participating in the longer, more demanding, and majestic Eastern liturgy."

As Varacalli himself says, knowledge of the Eastern Catholic Churches is non-existent or dim for many (he could have said "most") Catholics (again note his use of this word, instead of "Roman Catholics", to refer to those who don't know Eastern Catholicism). These people surely are aware of the use of "Roman Catholics" to refer to Christians who are in communion with (or, if you prefer, subject to) the Pope. So Eastern Catholics, who are in communion with (subject to) the Pope, would in popular discourse be included in the term "Roman Catholics" - exactly as in the Church's own usage, whatever about "scholarly" usage.

Easy enough to avoid a debate on this, although I consider Varacalli as not what might be called scholarly. Anyway, I used the other quotations to make the same point. There are probably 30 other cases that can be found with searches.... If you want to see real confusion look at this [2] which is supposed to teach pastoral implementation. It says: "there are 22 churches of which the Roman Catholic Church is the largest". Please note that he wrote 22.

The fact is that the term Roman Catholic is used to refer to the Western Church by the Catholics at large and popular writers is well known, and can be supported. Those with more theological education just do not like this situation. But that does not change the common use of language. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course "Roman Catholic" is used at a popular level to mean "Western Catholic", especially by Easterners (whom for some reason you put in the "scholarly usage" section). In fact, Easterners seem to be at least as ignorant about Western Catholics who use a liturgy other than the Roman Rite as Westerners are about Easterners. But is it not true that at a popular level "Roman Catholic" indicates allegiance to the Pope just as much (or more) as it indicates "Western Catholic"? And should not that fact be mentioned explicitly when talking about popular usage?

I would say that the most common popular usage by far of "Roman Catholic" is as a reference to allegiance to the Pope. Do you really think that at a popular level Protestants exclude Eastern Catholics from the meaning of "Roman Catholic"? They too form popular usage, and indeed in perhaps most English-speaking countries more than Catholics do. It is the speech of the common people, not the terminology of those with pretensions to scholarship, such as Varacalli and the writer of the RCIA handbook, that counts as popular usage.

Varacalli in fact says nothing about the meaning of "Roman Catholic" in popular usage. He only indicates his own fluid interpretation of the term.

The popular usage of "Roman Catholic" to indicate allegiance to the Pope is seen even on blogs, where you will find expressions as curious as the self-description "Byzantine Roman Catholic" here and here and here.

Lima (talk

) 21:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the estimate of what the term signifies more or less, I am generally careful not to estimate based on my own experiences since that would end up in errors of stratified sampling which subconsciously enter personal experience samples. Similarly, the exact estimate of how often that sense of the term is used by Easterners or Westerners needs some serious statistical research, and I have not seen one. But clearly, it is used by both sides. I will add the allegiance item, and it was a good observation I had not thought of before.

Regarding public confusion, that is to be expected and it happens in most fields, not just religion. People in each field usually just look at their own field. For instance, consider the term "light year" which in popular discourse (from Joan Baez songs to articles in the London Times) is used to mean "a long time ago". However, every physicist will know that it is a measure of distance and not time, as a reader of the London Times pointed out at the end of that article: [3]. Note that none of the editors or proofreaders of the London Times noticed the error until the paper was published! And most people who have heard Diamonds & Rust probably never worried about the physics of it or written a complaint letter to Baez. So one can not blame the public too much for confusing the Roman Rite with the Latin Rite after all. One needs to help educate them. So this article needs to spell things out clearly.

As for the location of the Eastern church quote, I can move that, but it is hard to measure when a book has crossed the scholarly line, unless it is by a

I agree: whether a book is truly "scholarly" or not is debatable. Even if outwardly based on cited facts and seemingly the result of careful study of the field, it may in reality be no more than the exposition of an eccentric idea. So I think it is much better to speak instead of books that "have pretensions to be scholarly". The two we have mentioned certainly have such pretensions. They cannot be classified as pop literature. Rather than to such books, I think we should look to newspapers for indications of popular usage. Do these two authors at all claim that their usage of terms is actual popular usage, rather than correct usage? Or is the claim that the two writers represent popular usage merely what Wikipedians call Original Research? There are several sources that say, on the contrary, that in popular usage "Catholic" means "Roman Catholic".

Lima (talk

) 19:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but in the next day or two I will have to seriously edit that section for the sake of the public at large. But it would be best if you would please "really" lighten it up first. I would appreciate it that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

By all means do.

As for the last paragraph, the simplest thing would be to omit the observation about the number of (Roman) Catholic archdioceses in the State of Pennsylvania, with two of them called after the city of Philadelphia. It seems to concern the pre-Vatican-II practice of naming dioceses (I use this term here in the generic sense of episcopal see, without distinguishing between diocese in the narrow sense, archdiocese, and metropolitan archdiocese) in the style: Gotham City of the Maronites, Gotham City of the Syrians, Gotham City of the Chaldeans, Gotham City of the Latins. If that is omitted, there will be no need to explain that it is outdated and to say what is the present style. More important still, it will omit what has only a remote connection with "Roman Catholic (term)". Or did you just mean to state the obvious fact that in all countries where there is a sufficient number of faithful of different "rites"/"autonomous particular Churches", the jurisdictions of the respective bishops overlap territorially, though not for the individual faithful concerned? It was obviously by a slip of the keyboard that you wrote "parishes" rather than "dioceses" for the five jurisdictions that were given that rank in 2001: the parishes are much more than five. There may also have been previously a confusion between "archdioceses" and "ecclesiastical provinces": the latter are always composed of more than one diocese, while the former are by definition a single diocese. This was one of the factual corrections (not just technical corrections) that I had to make.

In my revision I have cited three sources that state explicitly that in popular usage "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" are synonymous (usually, even if not always). One of them (Protestant) strongly bewails the fact. Since you have had a different view of what is popular usage, I have preferred not to overstress this contradiction by giving it a subheading, at least not until I hear your comments on it.

Until I do hear your observations, I feel I should not set about lightening the text.

Lima (talk

) 06:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to lighten it up little by little over a few days. Although the line between scholarly and popular may be vague the line between official and popular i snot. And I would say that "pope speak" is probably not what one would call street language so that I would put in the official section. Also, what is this Catholic apostolic church international website? Are they are serious. Or are they totally "self appointed"? I am not sure if they are well known enough, because I could start a church tomorrow (Heaven forbid) order a purple robe and call it the Catholic Wikipedia electronic church. But what does that mean in terms of the use of language? For instance, this gentleman [4] looks like he runs a church, but he was fired by the Vatican [5]. So I am not sure if these types of "churches" merit inclusion here. By the way, that was a nice missal image, I assume it was intended for the liturgy section. Cheers History2007 (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that observation about the source that I gave solely on account of the phrase about being Catholic but not under the authority of Rome, not because of any supposed importance of the little group itself. In view of your remark, I have removed the reference and made mention instead of more substantial groups that claim to be Catholics not under the authority of Rome. Unfortunately, this lengthens the article slightly. On the other hand, in view of another of your remarks, I have shortened and lightened the caption of the Dominican Missal, making clearer that it is an illustration of a Latin liturgical rite distinct from the Roman. With regard to your other remark, there is indeed a difference between official and popular language (I think the two writers we mentioned are endeavouring to use official language). It is therefore particularly interesting that in both "speak"s the predominant or usual understanding is that "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" are synonymous.

Lima (talk

) 15:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I started to simplify things one step at a time. Let us do them one section at a time. Please look at Liturgy and see if we are finally done with that. I think Churches is almost done too, and Eagle just added another clarification. But let us finish liturgy first, then do churches, then we can handle street-speak, learned-speak, confused-speak, etc. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Lima: The A vs B section approach you used actually makes things logically easier to follow. But I had to trim the text back and simploify it to stop it from getting in the way of logic. I think the amount of text we have now is close to the absolute max than can be tolerated without making the article unreadable. History2007 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you guys (Lima and Eagle) made only minor changes to the text today, do I take it that we are close to a stable version? I do not have any other items to edit or add - Thank God. This article became longer than I had anticipated, but looks good to me now, and I appreciate your suggestions and edits. If this is the case, we can just sit back for a while. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would want to retouch the lead in line with the Present Usage section, when this is settled.

Lima (talk

) 19:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the lead can use a retouched as you suggested, but perhaps not a total rewrite. And can we please keep it the same length and not make it any longer? And we should try to keep heavier words out of the lead and use as simple a language as possible. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, History2007 and Lima. I apologize for the length of footnote 31. It's in response to the text and footnote's implication that Bordwell's "2002 edition" of the CCC is a variant of the CCC. In reality, all copies of the CCC (2nd ed.) must conform to the text as copyrighted by the USCC in 1997 (with the glossary and index copyrighted in 2000). I also added most of the footnote to the article on the CCC itself. Thus, most of the footnote can be deleted, but perhaps we should use a different text instead of Bordwell's. Thanks for all the work you both put into this article. It looks great. Although confusing at times (due the nature of the topic), I believe it can be helpful to Catholics and non-Catholics who might be wondering about the usage. Eagle4000 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I must confess (is there a priest around) that I do not know the Catechism that well at all. So I will leave it to you two (who seem to know much more about it) to decide that. I have no problems in changing Bordwell etc. as long as it is an official type of text. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I think it was worth all this discussion to get it right. A few minutes ago I was doing a search and found this page [6] from Boston University school of theology. It is an exact copy of the Wiki-article on scapular. I am amazed that they are using Wikipedia articles, knowing how much of the material on that page came about. E.g. User:Boston actually took a photo of his own rosary and scapular as he was discussing things with me. And a lot of the text there came from a theologically uneducated person like me. So we should do these articles carefully, for they are now being used in theology schools. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is amazing, that a theology school is using a Wiki page. I just clicked on the link. The scapular page appears for a moment and then disappears. Perhaps the school is removing the page .... Still, History2007 is correct; it shows why we (and all Wiki editors) need to be as careful, diligent, and accurate as possible .... Eagle4000 (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that Whitehead is referenced but I do not think this article adequately presents his POV (that "Catholic Church" is the proper name of the church). Patrick Madrid makes a similar assertion. We should present their case without validating or invalidating their position. It is simply a notable POV that should be presented in its entirety. --Richard S (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Whitehead was there, debated, then he somehow got demoted in favor of Avery Dulles I think, because Dulles was more major or had more lobby power, etc. I remember that debate, but if you want to beef up Whitehead be my guest, but please do not over promote him for he is just one guy. I do not even know Patrick Madrid so if you want to introduce him, please do, but again perhaps without an orchestra. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just became aware of the existence of this article via

Actually Richard this article has been competing for the stealth article award and been in hiding... just kidding, it needs more links, perhaps one from the main article. That is a very long page you had there, so perhaps you can clarify how it can say more here. As you can see from the edit history, there were many edits here. Anyway, how does that article agree/disagree with this? And is it worth spending effort herein? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's worth spending much effort on this article. It's one of those things that I didn't know much about a year ago and, now that I know more about it, I don't really think it's that important in the greater scheme of things. However, some people do think it is important (enough to spend months arguing about it) so it's good to document this knowledge so as to minimize the amount of ignorant argument. (Intelligent argument is one thing but ignorant argument is really a waste of time and energy.)

I have copied a bunch of text voer from

User:Richardshusr/Names of the Catholic Church and tried to integrate it into the flow of the article. I still think "Name of the Catholic Church" should be the first section in the article but I didn't want to put it back there without getting agreement from you and any other editors who might have an interest in this article. --Richard S (talk

) 03:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the material you added makes the Name section better. One of the subsections is too short and should probably be folded into another unless it gets expanded.But the current expansion makes it even more essential to have history upfront, so the reader knows where the term came from before diving into the details of Branch Theory. I had "no idea" where the term came from before I started writing this article, and I guess many people also do not know it, so that info should be provided upfront. History2007 (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if this article did not include patches of pure invention like [Ecclesia] was coined by the early Greek converts to Christianity in and around the Jerusalem area. No, it wasn't. It's the standard Classical Greek word for a meeting, including such well-known ones as the Athenian Assembly, which was centuries older. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Came across this in an online discussion:

["ROMAN CATHOLICISM The faith, worship, and practice of all Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome, whom they acknowledge as the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the Church founded by Christ. The terms "Roman Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" date from at least the early Middle Ages, but the stress on these terms became prominent after the Protestant Reformation. The reason was to emphasize the distinctive quality of being not only a Christian, because baptized, but of being a Catholic, because in communion with the Pope."]From Servant of God Fr John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary. Afterwriting (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this:

By the middle of the 20th century the use of the term Roman Catholic was widely established in the United States and a 1957 survey by the United States Census Bureau determined that 25% of the US population applied the term Roman Catholic to themselves.

It is not supported by the cited source, which

The claim has been made in an edit summary that there is only one extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. There are many, but only one of them is authorized, the 1962 form. Pope Benedict XVI stated that the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal was never juridically abrogated. Nor were the pre-1962 editions juridically abrogated. Some are regularly used by those who reject Pope John XXIII and his 1962 Missal, not to speak of those who reject even Pius XII's alterations of the Triduum Sacrum texts. Celebration of Mass with any pre-1970 edition is a form of Mass of the Roman Rite, an extraordinary form of it, whether it is authorized or non-authorized. Since there are several, it is inexact to speak of any one of them as the one and only extraordinary form - except when clearly speaking of the two authorized forms of the Roman Rite, in which case one can certainly refer to "the" extraordinary one. But not outside of that context. Esoglou (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The 'branch theory' section gives us "Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church", citing Avery Dulles(and this was also the formulation in the Irish Constitution's Article 44 until the section was removed in 1972 - I've checked my copy of it). But the Note beside the Dulles citation has no 'and' in the English name, and no 'et' in the Latin name, and is backed by two citations. This is confusing (and caused me to mistakenly make a premature 'fix'), so can anybody clear it up, please? If that means the 'and' is incorrect then some other articles would also need correcting. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The Latin text has no et. For the Latin, I have added links to the official acts in the

Acta Sanctae Sedis and to the authoritative Schaff book on the Christian Creeds. Schaff gives the English translation by Henry Edward Manning, a participant in the First Vatican Council, which has no "and". I don't have access to the book by Dulles, but it is quoted, with "and", here and here. The Dulles quotation can be omitted if it is seen as not so much a direct translation as a pointing out, distinctly, each of the qualifications of the Church by the (uncapitalized except for the necessary capitalization of "Roman") adjectives (without using serial comma). Esoglou (talk

) 16:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The opening sentence of the article, "The term Roman Catholic appeared in the English language at the beginning of the 17th century", is probably factual enough but I think it is also a bit misleading as it seems to suggest that equivalent terms to "Roman Catholic Church" did not exist anywhere else before then and I don't think is correct. Some Latin terms more or less meaning "Roman Catholic Church" were already in existence and I seem to remember reading that equivalent terms existed earlier than the 17th century in other European languages. Can anyone add to or clarify this? Anglicanus (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The lede sentence is now very poor and the whole lede section is inadequate to summarize the contents of the article. I see Daniel1212 is currently editing the article, so I'll give him some time and notice to improve it, but I'm inclined to tag it if it remains or worsens. Elizium23 (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I think i am done for now unless you need more examples of the term "Roman" being used as "Roman church," "Roman Catholic" before the 17th C., but i do not know if such was first in English. I suspect some editors might have been intent on showing that their church alone has the copyright on the title Catholic, and that the use of "Roman Catholic" was simply by Protestants and in the pejorative, while it (if rarely) occurred earlier than the Reformation and is used after that by Roman popes apart from ecumenical purposes. And can be warranted since the Orthodox can also refer to themselves as Catholic.Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC at

Although this quote is properly cited and supported by the source, I cannot find it in any of the documents created by the Council of Trent.[7] IMO, Vatican I is the only plausible source for it. See here and this search: "holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church" site:http://www.papalencyclicals.net. At this time, Vatican I was the latest ecumenical council and the authoritative source for this type of information. Trent was already medieval history. Trent used "Catholic Church" 34 times and "Roman Church" 29 times, but never used "Roman Catholic." Nine Zulu queens (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In the opening:

"Roman Catholic is a term sometimes used to differentiate members of the Catholic Church in full communion with the Pope in Rome from other Christians who also self-identify as "Catholic", especially Anglo-Catholics and Independent Catholics."

I changed "Anglo-Catholics" to "Anglicans" with the comment:

"I think Anglo-Catholics are a red herring here. The entire Anglican communion identifies as 'Catholic'; "Roman Catholic" was used in distinction to that identification of Cathoicism from at least the 16th century, while Anglo-Catholicism only existed from the 19th."

Place Clichy changed it back with the comment:

"It is wrong to say that the entire Anglican communion identifies as 'Catholic', in a way that they would use the term "Catholics" and be understood unambiguously as referring to themselves. They would use the term "catholic" as a qualifier, as would any branch of Christianity which adheres to the Nicene Creed, but never as a stand-alone identification. Actually, Anglicanism from the 16th century identified as Via media."

I'm afraid Place Clichy's understanding is incorrect, both on the historical and the current position.

Oxford English Dictionary:

"The use of the compounds (and their predecessors Romish Catholic adj., Romish Catholic n.) apparently originated among English Protestants who regarded themselves as the true Catholics, rather than those who remained loyal to the Pope, whom they therefore distinguished as Romish or Roman Catholics [...] More general acceptance of Roman Catholic as a non-controversial term seems to have followed its use for conciliatory reasons in negotiations connected with the proposed marriage between Prince Charles, son of James I, and Isabella of Spain in 1618–24 (compare quot. 1623 at sense B., which is taken from contemporary English documents relating to these negotiations). The compound form has long been used in contexts where it is important to avoid the ambiguity of Catholic used alone." [8]

"Injunctions by Queens Majestie", 1559:

"Ye shall praye for Christes holy Chatholique church, that is, for the whole congregation of Christian people, dispearsed throughout the whole worlde, and specially for the Church of England and Irelande."

"Festivals", John Day, 1615:

"Nor meant it Romane Catholiques, but good true Catholiques indeed."

Sermon on the Whole Duty of Clergy, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, 1670:

"The Catholic Church hath been too much and too soon divided..but in things simply necessary, God hath preserved us still unbroken: all nations and all ages recite the Creed..and all Churches have been governed by Bishops."

"A Catholick Pill to Purge Popery", 1677:

"As many as do sincerely and soundly imbrace, profess, and practise the same, they are the Catholick church (that is, parts and members of the Catholick Church) and true Catholicks indeed. [...] Are not the Papists then good Catholicks? No."

All this long preceded the Anglo-Catholic movement, and is unrelated to it. The situation is the same now:

The Church of England's current website:

"The Church of England is both Catholic and Reformed." - [9]

The Episcopal Church in the USA:

"Anglicans consider themselves both Catholic and Protestant" [10] "The monasteries were suppressed, but few other changes were immediately made, since Henry intended that the English Church would remain Catholic, though separated from Rome." [11] "A Catholic Church for a Global World" [12]

I'm afraid that suggesting that the Anglican concerns, historic or current, about the term 'Catholic' have anything to do with Anglo-Catholicism is thoroughly misleading; and it clearly makes no sense to say that "Roman Catholic" was coined in the 16th century in order to distinguish anyone from the Anglo-Catholics of the 19th century. TSP (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a compelling rationale to me. I have updated the lead phrase accordingly, until someone else comes up with other more convincing arguments. PPEMES (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(

Independent Catholics and some Protestants. Place Clichy (talk

) 16:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)