Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Archive 16

Xandar's observations

I don't know why we're now trying to start again from scratch after we'd reduced the disagreements on the prototype note to a manageable few. It seems like starting all over again to no useful purpose. As far as the alleged "points of agreement" go.

• [The Catholic Church] is the name used in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the central compendium of Catholic belief"authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine" created by the Church in 1992.

This massively understates the case by ignoring the mass of official documents and pronouncements, including those of Vatican II, Lumen gentium, Codes of Canon Law.

• In the Common Declaration of 29 April 1977 of Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Donald Coggan the Roman Catholic Church is the name used for the Church represented by Pope Paul VI.

This may be a point of agreement, but it is here being given too much weight by being contrasted with the Catechism etc. What we're talking about is a 1977 common-declaration written for a specific diplomatic instance. Not general usage. This fails WP NPOV by falsely over-weighting a marginal document.

• There is some dispute as to whether in fact the church has an "official name," and what that name might be.

Untrue. I have not seen any evidence of this dispute. And the issue is not of an "official" name but as to what is the PROPER name used by the Church of itself. The word "official" was only settled on in the earlier consensus, because of complaints that "proper" was too opinionated.

• Various terms, including "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church", appear in official church documents referring to the church.

Misleading again. This implies a false parity between use of CC and RCC. To be true it would have to say "Catholic Church is used in the church's core and self-defining documents, and in the vast majority of its documents and pronouncements."

• Some Catholics dislike the term "Roman Catholic Church".

Since the Catholic Encyclopedia, the majority of Catholic Sources and the Bishops themselves have come out against it, this is a lot more than "some" Catholics - which implies a minority.

So I'm not seeing a lot of future in most of these statements, which again seem to be mostly attempts to give misleadingly undue weight to the "Roman Catholic" position. We have to have a balanced note that sets out the valid points with PROPER WEIGHTING. Weasel terms like "both RCC and CC are used" are misleading. I think we are better off working on a whole note. Agreeing statements in isolation, even if possible, may well lead to another set of disputes later when the statements come to be assembled together. Since the relationship between the statements is important. My solution was to set the evidence for Catholic Church and the evidence for Roman Catholic separately, without over or under-stating either case.Xandar 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to agree that the statements about the CCC title and the 1977 declarations are true, and only complain of "undue weight". At this point we are only trying to list things we agree on, and it seems that you join in agreeing on these two statements, but want something added about the weight. Well, add it, and see if we agree on it. Or let it wait until, after listing things on which we do agree, we can debate things on which we do not agree.

You disagree on the third statement. That means it must be removed from the list of agreed statements.

On the fourth, you say it is misleading on the grounds of implying a false parity. That can be remedied by including a phrase about lack of parity, a phrase on which we can agree.

You disagree with the use of "some Catholics". Others would disagree with "all Catholics", since Richard's useful collection of sources gives instances of Catholics who see nothing wrong with the expression. So it appears that this statement must be removed from the list of agreed statements or else must be radically modified.

It would surely be helpful, as a first step, to make clear what we do agree on, even if it is little. Soidi (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xandar, great job here. Yes I have problems with many of the unreferenceable statements that attribute undue weight to insignificant and rare instances of use of Roman Catholic and omit significant uses. For example, these kinds of statements:

• "The Church does not have an official name." or "There is a dispute over whether it does"

There are no sources to support these statements but we have several sources that support that it does have an official or proper name (the language used in the note that is referenced to Catholic Encyclopedia, Madrid and Whitehead) and I would like to offer another source that says it too: Richard McBrien's new book called The Church, the evolution of Catholicism says the same thing that Academic American Encyclopedia says, that the Church "claimed as its title" Catholic Church. You can find his quote in the Preface of the book page xvii here [1] I am not sure I like using McBrien because he is considered a fringe source but Academic American is not a fringe source and these two are in agreement. I think because we have so many sources supporting the statement that the official or proper name of the Church is Catholic Church, we can not omit this significant fact. I agree with Xandar and Sunray that any suggestions put forth by Gimmetrow and Soidi need to have a reference attached to it and we can not put undue weight on the insignificant sources. NancyHeise ^talk 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Then attach references to them. Gimmetrow 05:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

We need a primary source for every statement. We may add a secondary source if it supports the primary source. Sunray (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All statements can and have been sourced multiple times. Everyone involved here should, by now, know these sources. Nobody complained when Xandar wrote up something without listing the sources. Interesting. Gimmetrow 10:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, Gimmetrow, don't.

Let us just say that 1) some of the statements by the writers that Nancy cites are manifestly false; 2) Nancy's interpretation of some of the statements is questionable Original Research (such as saying that "claimed as its title" means "claimed as its one and only title"); 3) since these writers give no statement by the Church itself, they really only tell us what is the opinion of these writers and should be presented as such.

What we are doing at this stage is making a collection of things we agree on. Nancy's point for agreement, "The Church has an official or proper name", is certainly not among the points agreed. It merits no more consideration at this moment. Soidi (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote my proto-note, I was not so concerned about sourcing everything till it had been agreed - since we have been through sourcing arguments ad infinitum. My complaint here is that people have been coming back with unagreed and highly-skewed statements, many of which are selective or worded in a manner that would mislead readers, as well as being unsourced. The current proposal seems to be that everyone submit a list of primary-sourced statements, and we then discuss which go in the note and how it is formulated. We can try that I suppose. It is certainly more rigorous than some of the offerings I highlighted in my last post. Shall we have a separate heading just for the list of sourced statements? Xandar 12:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I, too, am tired of the sourcing arguments. The issue is largely not the sourcing of facts, but the selection of facts presented. That's partly why I think this issue needs a completely different approach. Gimmetrow 14:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

About sourcing

Sunray wrote " If I read Richard right, he is saying we should not be using secondary sources in this case (naming) that are not supported by primary documents. I agree with that."

Somewhere along the line, this dictum has morphed into a focus on primary sources for the Note. I'm not sure that Sunray did "read me right" and I now regret not having jumped on this earlier.

I would like to clarify my position about primary and secondary sources. Forgive me for any pedantry in what follows. I want to establish a solid defense against possible charges in the future that we have engaged in Original Research by using primary sources.

The gold standard for Wikipedia is the secondary source. The reason for this is that we are always able to say truthfully "Source A asserts that X is true" if source A is a verifiable secondary source. It may be that "Source B asserts that X is false" but that is often easily added to the article without giving the lie to the first statement. (Source A says one thing and Source B says another. Both statements are true.) It is only when a Wikipedia article says "X is true" that we start having difficulties. When we use secondary sources that conflict, the debate focuses on whether source A is more reliable than source B. With proper sourcing, the debate never turns on whether Wikipedian P is more correct than Wikipedian Q. (who are, for the most part, anonymous nobodies). If source B contradicts source A, we have a dispute "in the wild" that we can document. It is a verifiable fact that the dispute exists.

However, when we use secondary sources, we must not abandon common sense and our own real-world experience. We should not use a secondary source to make an assertion that can be easily proven to be false. Thus, if a source says "no plane can fly faster than Mach 2" but we can point to a plane that does fly faster than Mach 2, that source should not be deemed reliable with respect to the assertion about planes not being able to fly faster than Mach 2. This approach is "refutation by providing an existence proof". Primary sources can be used as "existence proofs". Secondary sources that cite primary sources are better for this purpose but "naked" primary sources are sufficient.

Now in the case of "naming the article", I'm not sure if we are focusing on "primary sources". Such a focus would seem unnecessary and not useful. We cannot ourselves determine from primary sources what the best name for the article is. Using secondary sources would seem to be the most defensible approach.

As for what the "official name" of the Church is, my advice would be "Use assertions made by secondary sources that cite primary sources or for which primary sources can be found and for which no contradicting primary sources exist".

Thus, assertions like "Roman Catholic is never used in official documents except to refer specifically to Latin-Rite or the Diocese of Rome" should not be made if someone can point to a primary document where it is used to refer to the whole church.

I have difficulty relying on one secondary source that says the official name is "the Catholic Church" backed up by other sources which come close to saying "the official name is the Catholic Church" but don't actually say it. As Soidi points out, many say things that we can all agree to if properly interpreted "the Church claimed as its title" (its title but not its only title, there are others), "the proper name of the church is the Catholic Church" ("proper' is a matter of opinion), etc.

What we object to is statements such as "the formal or official name for the church established by Christ is the Catholic Church." (Madrid) "The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself" (Whitehead). These seem to be contradicted by "existence proofs" from the primary sources.

--Richard (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a useful discussion on sources. And I think that Richard raises an important point about the use of secondary sources in the note. However, I want to clarify that in selecting the name of an article we are obliged to follow WP:Naming convention and WP:Naming conflict. As I mentioned before, the latter gives the following criteria for names that are proper nouns in cases of conflict:

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term).

So I am continuing to stress that we should follow that. Then, in writing the note, to ensure that our chosen name is defensible (as Richard puts it), we need to chose secondary sources that affirm what we have found based on our review of objective criteria. Sunray (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, as several participants have pointed out, there are no truly authoritative secondary sources on this subject. The best we can do is add reliable sources that support the primary documents. Sunray (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have compiles the following to help distinguish between sourced and unsourced statements. NancyHeise ^talk 18:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourced statements

Wikipedia WP:RS requires us to rely upon modern scholarship. It asks us to avoid fringe sources and those that are self published. Following this instruction, I created a list of statements that are sourced to primary Church documents and to secondary sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS. Please note that Catholic Encyclopedia and New Catholic Encyclopedia are long respected scholarly works created by renowned church scholars. Whitehead is the only source used by scholarly edited worldwide Catholic media to explain the name.

If anyone would like to add to the list of sourced statements, please make sure that you attach a link to a reliable source when adding. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 18:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

1. After the East-West Schism, the term "Catholic Church" was used in the West to denote union with the see of Rome, to the exclusion of the Eastern Orthodox Church and, later, of Protestantism.

Referenced to Alan Richardson, John Bowden (eds.), The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology. Westminster John Knox Press, 1983 p. 86 and Richard McBrien, The Church, the evolution of Catholicism Harper Collins Publishers 2008 p. xvii

2. According to the 1995 Academic American Encyclopedia[2] and Richard McBrien's 2008 The Church, pXVii[3] the Church claimed "Catholic Church" as its title

3. It is the name used by the pope when signing all of the documents of the Second Vatican Council which include the Church constitution, Lumen Gentium - citing primary documents,[4] Catholic media EWTN and Our Sunday Visitor [5]

4. and is the name used in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the central compendium of Catholic belief created by the Church in 1992. cite primary document [6]

5. The Catholic Encyclopedia[7] and Catholic experts such as Whitehead [8] and Patrick Madrid,[9] state that this is either the proper or official name for the Church

Catholic Encyclopedia quote "In fact Catholic soon became in many cases a mere appellative--the proper name, in other words, of the true Church founded by Christ, just as we now frequently speak of the Orthodox Church, when referring to the established religion of the Russian Empire, without adverting to the etymology of the title so used." [10]

6. while the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica claims that the Church is the "only church known officially and in popular parlance" as the Catholic Church.[11]

7. The Church is also known as the Roman Catholic Church, cite Walsh[12] *particularly in English-speaking countries. cite Catholic media [13]

8. It originated as a derogatory label applied to Catholics by Protestants beginning in the 16th century. cited to Catholic Encyclopedia [14] and Walsh p.19 [15]

9. "who resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of Catholicity". cited to New Catholic Encyclopedia and Walsh [16]

10. "A good many Roman Catholics object to the epithet "Roman" for a variety of reasons" cite Walsh [17]

11. Presently, Roman Catholic sometimes used by the Church in ecumenical negotiations and agreements such as the ARCIC with churches that subscribe to the Branch theory, cite primary documents

12. even though this theory is rejected by the Church. cited to Catholic Encyclopedia [18] and Catholic media [19] and Walsh [20]

13. Some governments have required the Church to adopt the name "Roman Catholic Church" in legal documents.cited to Catholic Encyclopedia[21]

14. Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" and "Roman Catholic" refers to either the Diocese of Rome or to specify that part of the Church which uses the Roman liturgy, Eastern Catholics do not use the Roman liturgy. cited to Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic media[22] [23] and Walsh page 21 [24] NancyHeise ^talk 18:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, the response to these statements is: So what? What do they prove in relation to the Xandar-Nancy claim that the Church has only one official name and that that name is CC?

Statements 1, 2, 3, 4 say that "Catholic Church" is used as a name for the Church headed by the Pope. They do not deny that other names are used also.

Statement 6 in context says that in civil use on the continent of Europe in the early twentieth century this church was the "only church known officially and in popular parlance" as the Catholic Church. It does not say that this practice was justified (on the contrary it decried the usage). It does not say that the Church used no other names.

Statement 7 admits that the Church is known as the RCC, and not only in English-speaking countries. It does not deny that the Church is called the RCC in the Church's own official documents issued in non-English-speaking countries and for non-English-speaking countries.

Statement 8 claims that the term RCC "originated as a derogatory label applied to Catholics by Protestants beginning in the 16th century". Of the two sources cited for this, Walsh cannot easily be checked, since no page number is given says nothing whatever, at least on the page to which reference has now been made, about who coined RCC; and Thurston says, in the same article, that the equivalent of RCC in Latin and French was already in common use in Latin and French before the earliest example he gives of RCC in English, in other words, that the origin goes further back. And there are reliable sources that say it does go back much further. So is Statement 8 reliably sourced?

Statement 9 says that the sixteenth-century Protestants resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of Catholicity. Of course they did. :So what? Statement 9 does not deny that they resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of apostolicity etc. also.

Statement 10 says that "a good many" (not "all") Catholics object to the epithet "Roman" for a variety of reasons". It does not say that the top-level officials of the Church have shared the dislike of those Catholics to the extent of never using the epithet "Roman" for the Church.

Statement 11 refers to "churches that subscribe to the Branch theory". As far as I know, no church subscribes to the Branch Theory.

Statement 11 also says that RCC is used in "ecumenical negotiations" such as ARCIC (whose documents are not official Church documents). It does not deny that RCC is used also in official documents of the Church, including documents signed personally by the Pope, whether in relation to groups within which the Branch Theory was once propounded though never officially adopted (Anglicans), or to groups that utterly reject the Branch Theory (Eastern Orthodox), or even with no direct relation whatever to other groups.

Statement 12 says that the Church rejects the Branch Theory. So what?

Statement 13 says that "some governments" (the source speaks of the British government alone) have required the Church to adopt the name "Roman Catholic Church" in legal documents (in reality only in an address to the English head of state read out to the head of state publicly by Cardinal Vaughan, not in all legal documents). The same source says that Cardinal Vaughan agreed to use RCC and later explained publicly that his action was justified. It does not deny that the Church also uses RCC quite freely, under no compulsion whatever.

Statement 14 perhaps does not deny that, as well as being applied to the diocese of Rome and to the Latin Church (mistakenly described as "that part of the Church which uses the Roman liturgy"), RCC is used of the Church as a whole. If it does deny it, then it is not supported by Walsh or Thurston, while Whitehead seems to narrow its application to the diocese of Rome alone. And if it does deny it, it ignores the actual practice of the Church.

I leave Statement 5 for possible discussion later.

Soidi (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Now for some more sourced statements:

15. In an official profession of faith imposed on all converts, the whole Church subject to the Pope (not only the local Church in Rome) is called Roman as well as Catholic:

"There can be no doubt that we can speak of the Catholic Church throughout the world as the Roman Catholic Church. This way of speaking since the sixteenth century has become quite common among our theologians, and is found consecrated in the Profession of Faith which converts are bound to make when received into the Church - 'I profess that I believe the Holy Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church to be the only and true Church established on earth by Jesus Christ.' Here the term 'Roman' plainly applies to the whole Church, and not merely to the local Church of Rome, 'the Mother and Mistress of all Churches'" (A well-known Rome-based canonist quoted in Life of Cardinal Vaughan, II p. 236-237)

15bis. The term RCC is used not only of the local Church in Rome and of the Church as a whole, but also of the Church in a particular country: Pope John Paul II, on his pastoral visit to Poland in May 2006, spoke of an agreement between the Church in that country and some other Churches in the same country as signed "on the part of the Roman Catholic Church and the Churches affiliated to the Polish Council for Ecumenism" (Warsaw, 25 May 2006).

16. The use of RCC by Catholics is correct:

"It seems to me that of the term 'Roman' added to the term 'Catholic' might be repeated to-day what of old was said of the term 'Catholic' added to that of 'Christian'. Our forefathers used to say, 'Christian is our name, Roman is our surname.' In both cases the use of the surname is justified and required by the use made of the name by those who were not or are not of the true fold" (A well-known Rome-based canonist quoted in Life of Cardinal Vaughan, II, p. 237).

17. The term RCC predates its use in late sixteenth-century English:

"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." (Modern Catholic Dictionary by Father John Hardon, SJ)

17bis. The term RCC originated outside of the English language and was already in common use in Latin and French before the earliest known instance of its use in English (Thurston in his article Roman Catholic in the Catholic Encyclopedia)

18. For Catholics, "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" mean the same thing:

"Let others call themselves, let them call us, what they please. What they think and say is their affair. But let us assert equal liberty for ourselves - 'Roman Catholic' or simply 'Catholic,' just as we please, for both mean the same thing" (Cardinal Vaughan quoted in Life of Cardinal Vaughan, II, p. 239).

18bis. For Catholics, "Roman" indicates not a subdivision of Catholicity, but its unity around a central point:

"With us the prefix Roman is not restrictive to a species, or a section, but simply declaratory of Catholic." The prefix in this sense draws attention to the unity of the Church, and "insists that the central point of Catholicity is Roman, the Roman See of St. Peter." (Cardinal Vaughan quoted by Thurston in his article Roman Catholic in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

19. Pope Pius XI wrote: "In the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing."[25]

20. Pope Pius XII spoke of "the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing". [26]

21. Pope Pius XII used the term RCC and declared authoritatively that the Mystical Body of Christ and the RCC are one and the same thing (this for anyone who considers it not permissible to cite the actual words of the Pope Pius himself):

"The most authoritative teaching of the Church on this important and yet delicate subject is the Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi which Pius XII published in 1943, and in which he simply and unequivocally identifies the Mystical Body on earth with the hierarchical Roman Catholic Church. When seven years later, certain writers were still not convinced, the Pope reprimanded their lack of obedience, declaring that 'Some think they are not bound by the doctrine, set forth in our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago and based on the sources of revelation, according to which the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same (Corpus Christi Mysticum et Ecclesiam Catholicam Romanam unum idemque esse)' This removed the last vestige of theological hesitation about the mutual identity, and today the opposite opinion would be considered heretical." (Hardon).

21bis. RCC is used not only in non-official ecumenical relations with other groups of Christians, but also in official documents of the Church, including documents signed personally by the Pope, such as the 1977 common declaration signed with Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggan.

Soidi (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To quote Soidi above: "In general, the response to these statements is: So what?" We have three statements from Cardinal Vaughan, defending himself from criticism for using the term, and two references to the single usage in one papal document. Cardinal Vaughn also stated (as recorded in the same source) that Roman Catholic should NOT be used except where ambiguity as to its meaning was not possible. Nothing here even suggests that Roman Catholic is the official or proper name of the Church. And once again Soidi is ranting on, misrepresenting what the editors of this article have been saying, and insisting on recycling defunct arguments. The whole point about putting sourced statements here is to get the facts of the issue stated clearly, so a note can be assembled without undue fuss. Xandar 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Xandar, so what? I don't claim that RCC is the official or proper name of the Church. What made you think I did? Soidi (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I compiled the list of sourced statements is because we need to create a note using only statements that can be referenced to reliable sources. Like Xandar, I do not see what use we can make of the book on Cardinal Vaughan as it does not offer anything contrary to what is already stated in the more reliable sources. The Live of Cardinal Vaughan is written by J Snead Cox, this book is not modern scholarship, it is a reprint of a rare and out of print book published by Kessinger Publishing. In addition, Cardinal Vaughan [27] is one bishop whose comments were controversial and he made these statements in the late 1800's. However the Catholic Dictionary does have some useful comments regarding Catholic And Roman Catholic. I will post Catholic below NancyHeise ^talk 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have spelled out above the lacunas in Nancy's sources that the sources quoted in the Life of Cardinal Vaughan fill out. For instance, she quoted a source that says that RCC means the local Church in Rome. Taken in isolation, that misleadingly suggests that RCC means only the local Church in Rome. Is it not good to quote a source that makes clear that RCC applies also to the Church as a whole? The statement by Cardinal Vaughan is not a statement by Cox, but by Cardinal Vaughan, surely an authoritative source, in spite of Nancy's unsupported claim that what the Cardinal said on this matter was controversial (unless she means it was controversial for non-Catholics, which is precisely why he announced beforehand his intention to make this public declaration of how Catholics understand "Roman Catholic"). I know of no objection, not even the slightest, raised by Catholics against the declaration he made. Why, even Thurston quoted him with approval. Surely Cardinal Vaughan is at least as much a reliable source as Whitehead and some of the others cited above. Soidi (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Soidi's statement number 21 takes out of context what the author is saying. It is common for theologians to use the term Roman Catholic and this theologian is not saying that Roman Catholic is the name of the Church in this statement. He is commenting on a Pope's argument with others. NancyHeise ^talk 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The quite authoritative author is saying that the Pope (not theologians) called the Church "RCC" and declared authoritatively that RCC and the Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same thing. Soidi (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• 22 Definition of "Catholic" by Catholicreference.net:

"Its original meaning of "general" or "universal" has taken on a variety of applications in the course of Christian history. First used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107) (Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2), it is now mainly used in five recognized senses: 1. the Catholic Church as distinct from Christian ecclesiastical bodies that do not recognize the papal primacy; 2. the Catholic faith as the belief of the universal body of the faithful, namely that which is believed "everywhere, always, and by all" (Vincentian Canon); 3. orthodoxy as distinguished from what is heretical or schismatical; 4. the undivided Church before the Eastern Schism of 1054; thereafter the Eastern Church has called itself orthodox, in contrast with those Christian bodies which did not accept the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon on the divinity of Christ. In general, today the term "Catholic" refers to those Christians who profess a continued tradition of faith and worship and who hold to the Apostolic succession of bishops and priests since the time of Christ. (Etym. Latin catholicus, universal; Greek katholikos, universal.) "[28]

NancyHeise ^talk 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to argue against using the term CC for this Church alone, since it concludes: "In general, today 'Catholic' refers to ... (a much wider body of Christians)". I don't think it is at all helpful for our purposes. Soidi (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree Soidi, the only body of Christians it is speaking of is that which "profess a continued tradition of faith and worship and who hold to the Apostolic succession of bishops and priests since the time of Christ. What other church besides Catholic Church holds the belief in Apostolic succession? NancyHeise ^talk 00:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

More sourced statements: I went to the library today and I found these additional sources that say the Church claimed as its title Catholic Church. Two of them use the word "exclusively" please see:

• 1)From The Oxford English Dictionary, 1978, Oxford University Press, Volume II, C, ISBN 0198611013, page 186 Definition of "Catholic":

  (a)After the separation, assumed by the Western or Latin Church, and so commonly applied historically.(b)After the Reformation in the 16th c. claimed as its exclusive title by that part of the Western Church which remained under Roman obedience.

• 2)From The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1997 ISBN 01921165x, Definition of "Catholic" page 305:

  "(3)In historical writers, of the undivided Church before the schism of E. and W., traditionally dated in 1054. Thereafter the W. Church usually referred to itself as 'catholic', the E. preferring to describe itself as 'orthodox'. (4)Since the Reformation RCs have come to use it of themselves exclusively."

• 3)From The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism general editor Richard McBrien and some of the 280 authors are listed here [29] published in 1995 by HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0060653388, Definition of "Catholic" page 240: "

  "However, the use of the word 'Catholic' became divisive after the East-West Schism of the eleventh century and the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth. The West claimed for itself the title Catholic Church, while the East, which broke the bonds of unity with Rome, appropriated the name Holy Orthodox Church. After the Reformation split, those in communion with Rome retained the adjective Catholic, while the churches that broke with the papacy were called Protestant."

If we include these with the 1995 Academic American Encyclopedia [[30] and the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica,[[31]] we now have a total of five sources saying the same thing - that the Church has claimed as its title Catholic Church and that the title is its exclusive title. I think since there is such unanimous agreement among scholars, this info is important to include in the note. NancyHeise ^talk 18:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nancy dropped me a note on my talk page about these sources. I responded there. In brief: these are not good sources, but it doesn't matter. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

• The Church has more than one official name
• There is scholarly dispute over the official name of the Church

NancyHeise ^talk 18:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me...

...in what ways this argument about how the note is to be written differs from the months of argument we've already had about how the first line is to be written? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It could be the same or it could be different. The debate centers one two assertions: (1) "there is one and only one official name of the Church, the Catholic Church" and (2) "any names that are used in official contexts are not official names of the Church in the sense that Catholic Church is".

If these premises are asserted as non-negotiable, then the discussion is the same.

If, however, there is a willingness to abandon these assertions and accept a more neutral wording in the first sentence followed by amplification in the Note, then there is hope for compromise.

--Richard (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Here, here! It's good to know that some editors have a common sense attitude to resolving this dispute. I have constantly believed that an acceptable wording shouldn't really be that difficult to achieve. The opening article's opening statement about "official" name is never going to receive adequate consensus and its associated "note" should be an embarrasment to anyone with an intelligent understanding of the issues involved. Unfortunately, however, certain "Catholic Church is the only official name" editors seem determined to assert this contentious POV as if their lives depended on it. Personally I object more to the error riddled "note" than to the claim about CC being the only official name. The current note needs to go and be replaced by something more balanced and factual instead of polemical fantasies. And Nancy, you really need to abandon your defence of Whitehead just because he is apparently the only source used by EWTN. This line of argument proves absolutely nothing. Just because Whitehead is used by EWTN doesn't mean that his opinions are correct - it only means that some others ( uncritically? ) accept and / or promote his opinions. Whitehead's opinions simply don't stack up against the weight of scholarly evidence to the contrary. The use of Whitehead in the note as *the* reliable source for contentious claims is not acceptable. Afterwriting (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that we have clarified that secondary sources will only be used to support actual documentation and objective criteria. Let's stay collaborative in tone folks. I think Nancy has indicated that she is aware of the need to document uses of the name(s). Sunray (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Afterwriting, we are after constructivity, not more ranting and POV-pushing in the tone of your post. We have got close to an agreed note more than once, and then new difficulties have suddenly been raised. Richard. The proposal at present is to go with the rename and "The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church", and then add facts and references in the note. Therefore we are not at this moment (simply for the sake of reaching agreement) talking about sole official names or any other red herrings. With the wording as just stated, there is no need for WP editors to make a decision on the matter, just to include the requisite references honestly and with proper weighting. Xandar 00:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I think we are in agreement. I think what jbmurray was objecting to was the regreesion of the Note discussion back towards the discussion about "one official name". I think if Nancy, Soidi and Gimmetrow can agree to avoid those red herrings, we can make progress. --Richard (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"I think what jbmurray was objecting to was the regreesion of the Note discussion back towards the discussion about 'one official name.'" Exactly. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't time just now to consider the following question: What about Writing the note above? Soidi (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that what we essentially need is actual documentation, not opinions. Soidi (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, can you clarify this? It sounds like you're arguing for primary sources over secondary sources. I think we can use both but we should characterize opinions as opinions and facts as facts. Secondary sources often express opinions. We can use primary sources to substantiate facts. However, primary sources can only be used for existential assertions, NOT for universal assertions,. (i.e. we can say "THERE EXIST some documents such that X is true" but we CANNOT say "FOR ALL documents, X is true" because to do so would suggest that we have reviewed ALL documents and that is OR) --Richard (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We CAN say "THERE EXIST some documents for which assertion/opinion X is false". One contrary instance is enough to prove unfounded an assertion/opinion of the kind "A is never used", "Only B is used", "B is always used". Soidi (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion shows how far you have come, IMO. We have an agreed upon lead sentence and we are close to a note we agree on. I think it would now be helpful to finalize the note. My suggestion would be to take Xandar's most recent version and remove anything for which we do not have primary and/or secondary sources. Nancy has complied a useful list of statements and sources. We will need to tweak wording, bearing in mind Richard's comments immediately above. The way to ensure that we are on solid ground is to review primary sources to say that "X is true," and limit such statements to only those that can be said with certainty. Let's try to keep building agreement. If you have concerns about a particular statement, please propose an alternative that addresses your concerns. Sunray (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Sunray and I thank you for clearly directing this mediation and doing so in a proper tone. I do not understand Soidi and others peristent argument that I am trying to insist on "official name" when I have already agreed to the new wording for the lead sentence and rename of the article. My efforts to distinguish between sourced and unsourced statements is an effort to help write a note that follows Wikipedias policies that require us to use reliable sources. Soidi's additional set of sourced statements come from a very old and rare book that has been out of print for a long time - it is not modern scholarship. The bishop making those statements made them in the 1800's and he was not representing the whole Church, in fact he is defending his use of the term Roman Catholic because it was not approved. See my comments above in the "Sourced statements" section. NancyHeise ^talk 15:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a copy of what Catholic Encyclopedia says about Cardinal Vaughan's comments with link provided here: [32]. I don't have a problem using Catholic Encyclopedia as a reference as I it is a highly respected scholarly work, the efforts of five renowned Catholic scholars. NancyHeise ^talk 16:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect, Nancy, I continue to have considerable problems with your line of reasoning, which appears to me to be both highly selective and inconsistent. I am not trying to be uncivil about this but you really can't have your cake and also eat it by dismissing certain sources and accepting other ones apparently on the basis of whether they agree with your own understandings or your personal assessment of their reliability. The fact is that there are various verifiable - and arguably "reliable" - primary and secondary sources on these issues that aren't in total agreement. Therefore on the principles of balance and neutrality no particular source should be considered definitive - or dismissed because of its age or "rarity" - unless a definitive source exists which, so far, no one has discovered. No source provided on these issues, including Whitehead, represents the "whole Church" and can be considered definitive. This is why I strongly object to the current note - and I look forward to a vastly improved and balanced version as soon as possible. It seems we are going to achieve this. I appreciate your deeply felt personal convictions on these issues but please understand that some of us also have convictions of a different kind. Regards. Afterwriting (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, it's not appropriate for you to be making accusations towards me or anyone else about "ranting" and "POV-pushing". I am pleased, however, that you are now taking a much more constructive approach than previously. I will try to do the same. Afterwriting (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that participants are taking a more constructive approach and generally focussing on content rather than each other. I probably sound like a broken record, but as there are few authoritative sources (the Catholic Encyclopedia may be an exception), I cannot over-state the importance of basing our assertions on objective criteria as suggested in the guideline on Naming conflicts and only using reliable secondary sources that back up those assertions. Sunray (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Because so many extremely reliable sources agree on several issues, like the proper name/official name/title of the Church and the use of Roman to refer to Latin rite what is the problem with using these sentences? Soidi and Gimmetrow seem to want to eliminate this information completely from the note. How can we reasonably defend a name change to Catholic Church if we exclude this reliably referenced info? Also, we need to include the info from Encyclopedia Brittanica that says that the Catholic Church is the only church that is "known officially and in popular parlance" by that name. If we do not include this in the note, we are going to have problems with the page move to Catholic Church and we should not invite problems, we are here to solve them. NancyHeise ^talk 00:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I for one don't want to eliminate anything that a source that Nancy considers reliable says, if presented as what that source says. That includes even Whitehead's statement that RCC is never used by the Church! And what they say must be presented accurately. For instance, the old Encyclopaedia Britannica did not say, in a universal sense, that the Catholic Church is the only church that is "known officially and in popular parlance" by that name. It said, and deplored the fact, that in civil life on the continent of Europe at that time the Church of Rome alone, officially and in popular parlance, was the one that was called "the Catholic Church" (katholische Kirche, église catholique). Soidi (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see my initial comment in this section... Why on earth is this argument continuing?! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's just get back to finalizing the note. I think we have clarified what needs to be in it. Sunray (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Soidi (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to building the note

Here are some statements which we mostly have agreed on which could form the basis for the note. The second statement (frequency of use) needs to be verified by google searches of Vatican II documents. What needs to be added/modified? Sunray (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Catholic Church" is the name used in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the "authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine" created by the Church in 1992. It is the name most frequently used to refer to the Church in documents of the Second Vatican Council. In the Common Declaration of 29 April 1977 of Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Donald Coggan the Roman Catholic Church is the name used for the Church represented by Pope Paul VI.

The statement "(CC) is the name most frequently used to refer to the Church in documents of the Second Vatican Council" does not correspond to fact. Of the first four documents mentioned in the cited index, two do not have even one mention of "Catholic Church", and Gaudium et spes has only one. But all of them have dozens of instances of the name "the Church". That this name is used specifically of the CC/RCC is clear from contexts such as "the Church's full canon of sacred books" (other Churches have different canons of Scripture) and "recent documents of the Church's teaching authority" (obviously of the RCC/CC's teaching authority alone). Presumably an examination of the other documents in the list would give a similar result. Does anyone want me to check? Soidi (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But surely "the Church" is a shorthand form which could be used by any church to refer to itself. I was suggesting a straight aggregate of number of times the two names at issue are used (note: the guideline specifically refers to google searches as objective criteria). We could also search for other names such as Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church just to be sure, but from what I have seen so far the Catholic Church will come up way ahead of any other names. The important thing here is that we should only state a fact. Sunray (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, other Churches could and do use "the Church" as a way of referring to themselves. Just as you will find that websites of the Orthodox Church commonly refer to that Church as "the one holy catholic and apostolic Church". Could we say something like: In the documents of the Second Vatican Council, this is the name that, when not referring to itself simply as the Church, the Church uses most frequently. (By the way, 8, exactly half of the 16 documents given in the list on the Vatican website, have no mention whatever of "Catholic Church". But I think no practical conclusion can be drawn from this.) Soidi (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

For me, what Sunray's put here is already too complex, and doesn't address what the note should be about. For instance, it beggars belief (to me) that a footnote should in turn have footnotes. But it's also symptomatic that in fact what we're seeing is a continuation (uninterrupted) of the arguments about the text itself. Are we then going to argue about the footnotes to the footnote?! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I like Xandars version that he posted just below. Because we have to support our reasons for moving the page from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church, we must have referenced text that states:

• That this entity is the only church that uses the name "officially and in popular parlance" (cited to Encyclopedia Brittanca)
• That the Church has titled itself as Catholic Church (cited to McBrien and Academic American Encyclopedia) and that Catholic writers and Catholic media agree (cited to Whitehead, Madrid)

If we omit this info, we will constantly have to discuss these issues with people who object to the move. I am not asking for "official name" to be inserted here, all I am asking is that we tell Reader that these reliable sources say what they say about the name. We can do that by referencing the note. NancyHeise ^talk 02:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps agreement is in sight. Would it not be enough just to quote what writers say, without presenting it as universally accepted and adopting it as Wikipedia's own view? The two points that Nancy mentions seem to me to come to this: "This is the only Church that regularly calls itself simply "the Catholic Church". I believe this is true, at least if you take "Church" to mean something more than some odd (good word!) groups who say that the "Vatican" has fallen away from the Catholic faith and that they alone are now the Catholic Church. The difficulty might be to source the word "only".

As I point out elsewhere on this page today, what the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica said was that in civil society on the continent of Europe in the early twentieth century the Church of Rome was the only one referred to both officially (e.g. government offices) and in common parlance as the katholische Kirche (German) or église catholique (French). It did not say that the Church rejected all titles other than CC. Soidi (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I spent some time in the library today and found even more sources that say that the Church claimed as its title "Catholic Church" and they use the word "exclusively". Please see these new sources here:

• 1)From The Oxford English Dictionary, 1978, Oxford University Press, Volume II, C, ISBN 0198611013, page 186 Definition of "Catholic":

  (a)After the separation, assumed by the Western or Latin Church, and so commonly applied historically.(b)After the Reformation in the 16th c. claimed as its exclusive title by that part of the Western Church which remained under Roman obedience.

• 2)From The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1997 ISBN 01921165x, Definition of "Catholic" page 305:

  "(3)In historical writers, of the undivided Church before the schism of E. and W., traditionally dated in 1054. Thereafter the W. Church usually referred to itself as 'catholic', the E. preferring to describe itself as 'orthodox'. (4)Since the Reformation RCs have come to use it of themselves exclusively."

• 3)From The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism general editor Richard McBrien and some of the 280 authors are listed here [33] published in 1995 by HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0060653388, Definition of "Catholic" page 240: "

  "However, the use of the word 'Catholic' became divisive after the East-West Schism of the eleventh century and the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth. The West claimed for itself the title Catholic Church, while the East, which broke the bonds of unity with Rome, appropriated the name Holy Orthodox Church. After the Reformation split, those in communion with Rome retained the adjective Catholic, while the churches that broke with the papacy were called Protestant."

If we include these with the 1995 Academic American Encyclopedia [[34] and the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica,[[35]] we now have a total of five sources saying the same thing - that the Church has claimed as its title Catholic Church and that the title is its exclusive title. I don't see how we can be expected to support Soidi's argument when these sources represent the most respected modern scholarship. NancyHeise ^talk 17:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Church claims certain titles as exclusive to it. It does not claim that any of them is its only title. Soidi (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, we have five of the most respected scholarly sources agreeing to the same issue and wording. We are really deep into WP:OR if we are going to put something into the note that adds or takes away from this wording without an equally scholarly source to support that OR and we don't have any that say what you are asking us to put into the note. NancyHeise ^talk 17:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent:) Nancy dropped me a note on my talk page about these sources. I responded there. In brief: these are not good sources, but it doesn't matter. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)