Talk:Theology (Catholic Church)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article needs improvement

It seems to me that this article, as it exists now, is poor as a general introduction to Catholic Theology as it does little to discuss the fields within it (liturgical theology, scriptural theology, moral theology, canonical theology, etc.) and is more an overview of a few beliefs. What's more, a good bit of what is stated is biased toward a liberal ideology with little discussion of the Theology, from the Magisterium's point of view, behind the topic being discussed. For instance, the section about Clerical celibacy discussed more about contemporary criticism against it rather than its theological underpinnings i.e. the "why" of Priestly celibacy. In the meantime, I'll try to add what I can. DiPietrelcina (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC); modified 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This article deals much more with the teaching of a catechism than it does the technical study, development, and expression of theology as it has occurred historically (through the ages) and up to the present time. In my opinion its tagline should be renamed to reflect that, and an altogether new approach should be taken leading to an entirely new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BWalkerJr (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on proposed text for East-West Schism

There is a dispute on East-West Schism regarding theological issues that divide the Catholic and Orthodox churches. There has been a long discussion (not as long as the one here on "official name of the Church") but long nonethless.

I have proposed new text that seeks to break the current logjam but I am really quite ignorant about Catholic and Orthodox theology and so I am concerned that I may not be accurately representing the Catholic perspective on these issues.

If you are interested in these kinds of things, please take a look at Talk:East-West Schism under the section "Proposed introductory paragraph for "Theological Issues" section".

Thanks.

–Richard (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The bias/neutrality tag that has been on this article has been on for more than a year, with no actual dispute or discussion about the subject on the talk page. I have removed it, if there is a dispute about this, please post here and the tag can be restored and discussion should take place about the issue. Zharmad (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception

Why is the Immaculate Conception listed in the first paragraph with Catholic ideas that differ from other Christian denominations? Nearly every Christian denomination accepts the Immaculate Conception in their doctrines. I corrected this error, but shortly after it was added back into the article, and I do not wish to engage in back and forth editing antics. –Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to read the article on the Immaculate Conception and then come back here to discuss the issue further. –Rudy Waltz (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Rudy. Perhaps the mention of the Immaculate Conception in the section where Catholic beliefs are different then the rest of the Christians could be confusing to some readers. Most Christians say Mary was a virgin, but only Catholics believe she is without sin. I think to most people the term Immaculate Conception describes a virgin, becomming pregant without laying with a man, and not a term to describe a women, who wasnt born with original sin. Let me know what you think. –Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Name change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Unless this article deals exclusively with Latin Rite Catholicism, it ought to be called Catholic Theology. WP Naming Conventions do not require Roman as in the case of the lead article, Catholic Church. –EastmeetsWest (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly where is this WP:Naming convention? You keep referring to it, but where is it and when and how did it come about? If you refer to a change in the title of the article Catholic Church, that does not a convention make. Not at all. That was a single change to a single article, not a universal convention for church unity or a formal Wikipedia policy. It may well be that this article content was corrupted and made inaccurate by the changes you made. How can you be sure all that theology also applies to all other Catholic churches? How did you verify all those sources single handedly? As a Roman catholic, how can I be sure that the theology I read on this page refers to the Church of Rome and not to the Eastern churches? The theology for the Church of Rome needs to have its own article so it is clear exactly what those teachings are. This article was clearly written as such. I need to be sure, as a reader, that I am not getting Eastern teachings. And there are hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics who have the same need. Period. –History2007 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

History, have you figured out the essential difference between Catholic and Roman Catholic? Are you still committed to blocking moves without putting up an argument? –EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP is not about your personal needs. WP is about correct information. You are poorly informed on the question of the Catholic Church. Please inform yourself. Start here: How did the Catholic Church get its Name? by Kenneth Whitehead (EWTN and The Catholic Answer.

In particular, see paragraph 8:

Today in an era of widespread dissent in the Church, and of equally widespread confusion regarding what authentic Catholic identity is supposed to consist of, many loyal Catholics have recently taken to using the term Roman Catholic in order to affirm their understanding that the Catholic Church of the Sunday creed is the same Church that is united with the Vicar of Christ in Rome, the Pope. This understanding of theirs is correct, but such Catholics should nevertheless beware of using the term, not only because of its dubious origins in Anglican circles intending to suggest that there just might be some other Catholic Church around somewhere besides the Roman one: but also because it often still is used today to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is something other and lesser than the Catholic Church of the creed. It is commonly used by some dissenting theologians, for example, who appear to be attempting to categorize the Roman Catholic Church as just another contemporary "Christian denomination"—not the body that is identical with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed.

–EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the pope Catholic? Of course I am still active. But I will type more later. Now I know what consensus existed and what did not. That we all know. Cheers. –History2007 (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

First, please note that I am obviously not against including Eastern churches in articles in general, because I renamed my Catholic art article to Marian art in the Catholic Church because it had Eastern icons. And I know what Roman Catholic is buddy. Don't open that door. And given that not all teachings (say dormition, infallibility, etc.) are shared by all 22 contenders, the change will make the article inaccurate in many other places. This was and is a Latin Rite / Roman Catholic article.

But going back to basics here: You started this rename discussion with the assertion that "Wikipedia Naming Conventions" demand it. After looking at the issues, it is now very clear that the assertion you made is flatly incorrect. There was a consensus to rename a specific page, namely Catholic Church but said consensus specifically stipulated that the rename would not radiate out to other and subsidiary pages. That is a fact. A fact stated several times in several places. And having discussed that issue at length on the Catholic Church page, it is clear that generative grammar approaches at renaming of Catholic X via blind substitution of X lead to incorrect results. Hence I see "no basis" for your requested change since your basic assertion turned out to be false. Period. –History2007 (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. If this is a Latin Rite only article, I can accept that. I just think it should be stated clearly in the opening that this is what it is. I just made the change. This should also require that all references to Catholic Church be changed to RCC or Latin Rite of the CC. I am fine with that. Let's just be consistent. –EastmeetsWest (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, where have you been? .... In the meantime, Roman Catholic (term) was built. I learned a lot and Lima helped a lot in fine tuning it. So if that is referenced upfront, that is all that is needed in general. Cheers. –History2007 (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Catholic social teaching

The section Catholic social teaching seems off-topic, unless the practice and institutions can be directly traced back to the catechism or such theological reasoning. Rursus dixit. –(^mbork³!) 10:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Title

I could be wrong, but I thought that Catholic Theology is the same as what St. Thomas Aquinas calls "Sacred Doctrine" (about which he says "this doctrine argues from articles of faith to other truths."). If this is true, then I think the title of this article should not be "Roman Catholic theology" but "Roman Catholic Teachings" or something like that. Theologians sometimes speculate about things that the Church did not formally define as dogma (for example, John Duns Scotus believed in the Immaculate Conception long before it was taught ex cathedra by the Pope, although that is an official church teaching now), and they also sometimes disagree with each other; but these things are at least for the most part not what is treated in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.87.42 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

As suggested by the tag, I am trying to improve the introduction. I see two main issues at the present moment: It is long and rambling, and imprecise and uncited. At the present moment, I have moved the discussion on the similarities and differences between Catholicism and other Christian religions to a new section of its own, and have added a footnote. However, this passage I don't know what to do with:

"The Church teaches that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, keeping of the Ten commandments and receiving the sacraments. There are a number of teachings which differentiate the Latin Rite Catholic Church from other Christian churches and even from the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. The most notable differences include Catholic beliefs in the existence of Purgatory, the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on Earth, papal infallibility, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary."

No one cited this remark, so I have no way of verifying it outside of doing my own research. The sentence on salvation seems an oversimplification to me; I don't think there are any Church documents that would describe salvation that way. I think, on the whole, that describing salvation theology in one sentence is bad practice. Also, It says there are theological differences between the Latin Rite Catholic Church and the Eastern Rite Catholic Church. I doubt that, since these are both divisions of the Roman Catholic Church, headed by the Pope. I am assuming the original author intended to make a distinction between Roman Catholicism (both Latin and Eastern Rite) and Eastern Orthodox Catholicism.

For now, the best course of action I see is to delete this material, and wait for the people who wrote this content to clarify or add sources. Some of this seems good material to include, so once it has been corrected, hopefully parts of it can return to the article. –wikiCatholicIndiana(talk) 23:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Starting merge discussion because whoever tagged these did not leave any comments as to why he thought these should be merged).

• Oppose, the articles are clearly on different subjects, Catholic theology has significant potential for growth. --JFHutson (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends. Nobody can agree on a definition of what "Roman Catholic" refers to. If "Roman Catholic" means "Catholicism under the Roman Pontiff" then it includes Eastern Catholic Churches and I would support the merge, because there is no difference. If, on the other hand, "Roman Catholic" refers to "Catholics of the Roman Rite in the Latin Church sui iuris of the Catholic Church" then I would oppose the merge. Roman Rite theology is distinctly different from that of the Eastern Rites. I believe that my final decision would be as follows: Elizium23 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merge and rename this article to either "Latin Church theology" or "Roman Rite theology" - not "Latin Rite theology". Then the article Catholic theology can be expanded to cover the theology of the Eastern Rites, which is primarily transmitted using Greek terminology such as the Byzantine Rite would use, and with a reference to the newly-named article for the theology of the Western or Latin family of Rites. The sections on Eastern Catholic theology would have much overlap in this case with those such as Eastern Orthodox Church, which has the same beliefs as the Byzantine Catholic Churches, aside from ecclesiology and the Petrine view. Elizium23 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple lead images

I don't much care which lead image is used, but there should only be one. Having more in the lead is needlessly distracting. –Hugetim ^(talk) 23:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)