Talk:Roman Catholicism

From Conservapedia

Contents 1 This is a rough start and others will need to help 2 Lone sentence 3 Controversy? 4 Requirements 5 Catholics not as Christians? 6 Roman Catholicism 7 Are Roman Catholics Christians? 8 What a waste of time

This is a rough start and others will need to help

I'm out of my depth here. I really wanted to write something that explains that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonyms. I think what I've written is sorta-kinda-roughly correct, and I'm not knowingly trying to push any particular point of view. If I've inadvertently stepped on any Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican toes here, my apologies, and please fix whatever I've gotten wrong. (Try to keep it "as simple as possible, but no simpler.") Dpbsmith 13:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Generally, catholic (lowercase) means "universal", whereas Catholic refers to the RCC, by default. If speaking of an Orthodox Catholic church usually it's denoted as to which branch is being discussed. Cracker^talk 13:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, "Catholic" doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic Church" refers to a specific Rite of the Catholic Church. It's the largest rite, by far, but is not the only rite in the Catholic Church. (These rites are also distinct from the Orthodox Churches. They have little to do with the Great Schism.) I'll try to see if I can clean this up a bit. As it now stands, it's more wrong than right. Kolbe 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

In the last edit, we lost the information about non-Roman and non-Latin rites:

Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the Roman Catholic Church, as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.

I'd argue that it's not the Roman Catholic Church that is the single true church, but, rather, the Catholic Church. I understand that in the US (and in the west, in general) the two terms seem interchangeable, but I'd rather not lose the distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic.Kolbe 03:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Moved here, until sourced:

Findings of an investigation determined that sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church.

I've never seen any such study, and I'm not sure how it would even be determined. I also changed hebephilia to ephebophilia, which is more commonly used (both words mean an attraction towards adolescents). Kolbe 22:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Lone sentence

Roman Catholics claim to be the apostolic successors of Saint Peter, who was given authority over his flock in the Bible.

Can this be merged? Was at Roman Catholics. --Ed Poor 18:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

This should be attributed to the Pope, not specifically to Catholics themselves.Hengineer 10:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Second Vatican Council== This should be its own subsection as "The Church" prior and post to the Council were almost two different churches?Hengineer 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Oops, wrote too soon, I didn't realize the "Roman Catholic Church" article already existed.Hengineer 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Controversy?

I dont know if it is so smart to put that in yet. I mean like put some factual stuff then put in the controversy, because making an article negative is not very appeasing to a reader. --Will N. 08:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you expect on this site? Conservapedia has a deeply unhealthy obsession with paedophiles and gay sex. Really makes me worried about a lot of the editors. --Bible Mike 10:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

lol i do not have an obsession witht that. that is nasty. ew why would you ever say that? --Will N. 10:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

This paragraph is just a bad copy of wikipedia and media, in their obvious attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic church and the worthy work in education of children. Child abuse is a mortally sin, no doubt and deserves severe prosecution, but where are the facts showing that child abuse happens more often by catholic clergymen than by other teachers or male relatives? --schifra 18:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

To do a little nitpicking, I'm not sure child molesting has ever been given formal recognition as a mortal sin in any way recognised by the Roman Catholic church. Though it doesn't really matter - fornication definatly is a mortal sin, and since child molesting means implicit fornication... it makes no difference at all, the result is still hell unless confessed. Recognising child molesting as mortal sin has about as much practical effect as imposing a death penalty for suicide :) NewCrusader 18:38, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Requirements

Currently, the article states:

To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ. "The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the Virgin Mary and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten."

I might argue some of those points. Primarily, to be Catholic is to be baptized (including, possibly, a baptism of faith) and to participate in the sacraments. I'd accept creedal statements along the lines of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed as possible requirements of faith. Belief in the existence of God, sure. In Jesus, in his death and resurrection, sure. In the resurrection of the body, in the communion of saints in life everlasting, sure. But the historicity of the Gospels? The divine commission of the Church? Sure, these are things that are taught by the Church. But I don't know that they're necessary to being Catholic. (I'm not sure why one would be Catholic if one didn't believe the divine commission of the Church, but still...) And, more importantly, I'd say that to belong to the Catholic Church is to participate in the sacraments--to receive the Eucharist, to be baptized, to be reconciled to God, and so on. The church is at least as much a sacramental church as a creedal church (and, I'd argue, it's more a sacramental church than a creedal church). Kolbe 23:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Catholics not as Christians?

Do we really need that part? It just doesn't really sound very encyclopedic. According to two websites Catholics aren't Christians, but according to some other websites out there aliens are secretly in control of the government. I feel I have to raise a question concerning that bit. Recomend it is deleted, or the contention be in some way justified.Jnl001 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a matter of definitions. They are christian in the loosest sense - they worship Christ. But many protestants consider that this definition is too loose, the RCC cannot be considered 'true' christians because they do not follow some of the fundamental teachings contained in the bible (eg, salvation by faith alone) or because they introduce some major elements that are not present in the bible (eg, a succession of popes, infant babtism, a church heirachy). Conversely, the Catholic Church will not recognise any *other* church as Christian formally, except the Orthodox church, because they consider a church is not legitimate unless it can trace ancestry back to Peter. Personally, I think the Catholic church isn't Christian in the most important sense of all: It's members are not Saved, because they are placing their faith in the church organisation and their rituals rather than in the personal salvation of Jesus. For this reason, while I will admit they are Christian, I personally consider them misguided and unintentionally extremally dangerous, and an organisation I am obliged to oppose. NewCrusader 07:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Roman Catholicism

The Title of this Entry should actually be Latin Rite Catholicism. The Latin Rite ("Roman Catholic") Church does not actually identify itself as "Roman Catholic", it Calls itself the "Latin Rite" of the "Catholic Church"

This said their needs to be a separate entry for "Catholicism".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pyranima (talk)

Are Roman Catholics Christians?

Now, I have been thinking about this for some time. As seen from many sources like Wikipedia, the Roman Catholics are indeed Christian. However, according to many Christian fundamentalist sources, the Roman Catholics are not Christian because they believe in many unbiblical things such as the infant baptism, sacraments, Mary worship, etc.

My question is, should the articles in Conservapedia concerning Christianity have the idea that Christianity is really a "biblical, based-on-the-Bible Christianity", not just a religion whose people are Christians just because they say "We are Christians"?

(To any born-again Christians, you may understand my question)

User:MaveYEL

I understand the question. Whether or not someone is a Christian depends on their own relationship with God, not on what church they belong to. Also, probably no Christian has a perfect set of beliefs: probably every Christian believes something that is contrary to biblical teaching. So "believing many unbiblical things" does not, of itself, mean that someone is not a Christian.

I would classify the Roman Catholic Church as "Christian", because it holds that Jesus is God, but I would also think that many people who are members of the church are not Christians, partly because many are members of the church out of tradition rather than conversion, and partly because there is insufficient emphasis on faith-based conversion. But that doesn't mean that there are not (many?) Christians in the Roman Catholic church.

I feel that some "fundamentalist" Christians are too harsh on Catholics, although that is not to dismiss their valid objections to many Catholic teachings, such as the ones you mention. And I would ask, is the Catholic church any worse than many liberal churches that reject the historicity of the creation account, accept homosexuality, reject miracles, etc. etc.? I do feel that there is a fair bit of inconsistency there.

Does Conservapedia handle this issue the best way it can? Probably not, but then Conservapedia's not perfect either!

Philip J. Rayment 05:22, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

(This is a discussion that may take a long time and much effort. I try not to talk too much on it, although I would like to clarify all doubts in this issue)

Hmm, here is my answer.

First: I do believe that some Catholics may be indeed Christians, that is receiving Jesus as their own personal Savior, as many Protestant fundamentalists say. However, if a Catholic is a Christian, his "Catholic" status is just a label. I see many people in Malaysia that are practically Christians, but have "Islam" status in their citizenship cards because of discrimination to the ex-Muslim converts in the country. The same thing may apply to some Catholics.

However, folks, this kind of case whereby a "Catholic" is a Christian is very unlikely to happen. A person, if saved and a Christian, knows the truth of salvation (except if he is an infant). For practising Catholics, do you really think they are Christians if everytime they think they are born again, it is because they are baptized (sprinkled)? Or, do you think they are Christians if everytime they think they received Jesus as Lord and Savior, it is because they eat the wafer god?

Second: I agree that the Catholics are no different with the liberal "Protestants". There is such a thing as true converts and false converts. (See Ray Comfort video for that one)

Third: If we have to classify Roman Catholicism as a Christian church, I think we have to define what Christianity means. My belief of Christianity is the biblical teaching of Jesus and the Bible. The "Christianity" mentioned everywhere else and the more common one is a collection of my biblical Christianity and the so-called pseudo-Christianity. Even if we have to choose the more common "Christianity" as the definition, I hope the term is defined first. Otherwise, some people including me will be upset with the statement like "Christianity comprises you-know-what".

This will be a tricky one. What one church considers an indisputable fundamental of the faith, another will consider heresy. There are even some who claim to be Christian, yet deny the miracles described in the Gospels. About the only thing that everyone who calls themself a Christian can agree on is that Jesus was important, somehow. Obviously we need a defintion just to stop the really strange churches from declaring themselves in. NewCrusader 07:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

User:MaveYEL

I think that this is a prime canidate to be a debate page, and though I`m not clear on how to make a debate page, maybe someone could for me

Just a thought but this article implies that the catholic church is the church that followed on from the ministry of Jesus. This isn't the case. The early Catholic church (it is alleged)known by scholars as the Pauline church (as it subscribed to the teachings of Paul of Tarsus,) engaged in a power struggle with what was at the time the established "Jerusalem Church" led by Jesus' brother James the Just. After the killing of James by a follower of the Pauline tradition (by throwing him off the corner of the temple mount and finishing him off with a fullers mallet)the Jerusalem church fled into the diaspora and the catholic church has done its best to suppress its existance ever since. Would this be a worthwile edition? The article is fairly scanty on the catholics role in evangalism accross the globe and its repository of history and knowledge particularly after the collapse of the Roman Empire. I realise that website is conservative in nature and the rift between The episcapalian ministry and The catholic church run's pretty deep in america and conservapedia tends to see people or groups with either a white hat or a black one, but surely Catholocism's influence on art, histiography and western culture in generalneeds to be acknowledged.

Trident1222

Conspiracy theories that are not supported in the ancient documents will not get play here. You are taking a historical event, the death of James the brother of Jesus as recorded in history, and then adding on a fanciful addition of a "Pauline" cause. No. Learn together 13:08, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

What a waste of time

I've tried three times to correct egregious mistakes in the Early History of this section and each time they've been reverted by a sysop with no explanation. The moral of this story is, if you write factual content that the people who run Conservapedia (which doesn't at all mean the same thing as people who are politically conservative, as understood anywhere outside the USA) find uncomfortable, the Conservapedia hierarchy will simply make an ex cathedra pronouncement that you're wrong and zap your edits.

I really can't be bothered arguing with them any longer. If their attitude to something as abstruse as the early history of the Catholic Church is that they'll believe what they want to believe, not what modern scholarship has discovered, then you can't believe a single word you read in this so-called encyclopedia about much more important subjects, like global warming or USA Presidential candidates. KennyMac 09:47, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

You have chosen to alter the article to put your own spin by simply removing enmasse what you did not like and adding what you wished, without discussing in talk, and without sources. When you were told this was not the way we operate and to rework it, you refused and simply put back the same unacceptable material. Even now you have an aggrandized view of yourself by putting this at the top of the talk section and not appending it to the bottom of the page in chronological order like everyone else has done. (I have move it for you). You do not work with others for the bettermen of the article. When you are serious about article improvement then you will be welcomed to return, but until that time, your departure will not be mourned. Learn together 11:49, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

All my edits were aimed at improving the factual content on the article. Much of the section of this article dealing with the early period is basically the agreed mythology of the church and has little connection with history. If you're seriously interested in the history of the early church, you should read 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin (1987, Fontana). Professor Herrin is one of the leading scholars of church between 400 and 800 AD. But I warn you, this isn't a comfortable read for anyone who wants to believe in a myth of a unified church with Constantine the Great establishing an benign empire based on Christian principles.

Anyway, Learn together, I've seen here and from many other edits you've made to other articles, that you - like most of the Conservapedia sysops (Philip J Rayment being an honourable exception - there may be others but I haven't seen them) - are perfectly happy to revert factual corrections to articles made by others if they happen to disagree with the cosy world view of American "conservatives", without explanation of any kind. Now, there may be many facts which are uncomfortable for the world-view of American "conservatives" (I repeat that this has very little connection with conservative politics outside the USA) but you and the other conservative sysops have to decide if you want to construct an encyclopedia of knowledge or an encyclopedia of approved prejudices for American "conservatives".

I'm going to correct this article once more (this time, I'll add the Herrin reference). If you revert my edits, I'll conclude that facts which conflict with American "conservative" prejudices aren't welcome here. Your choice.KennyMac 17:42, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

What I see is that you are simply reinserting the same information, again without discussion as to individual merit, and basically saying that should be enough and any effort to revert it will look poorly upon me - no. I also have to ask what edits of Philip's in Roman Catholicism or the other articles you have edited led you to your conclusions?

I have allowed you to stay because you do have knowledge which I believe could be beneifical, but your approach must improve. Learn together 03:13, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

That's an improvement on your first contribution to this discussion. Which, if you recall, was to block me for a fortnight and label my contribution as vandalism, simply because I had corrected some serious errors in the article. KennyMac 18:01, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh, everyone gets banned by an overzealous admin. I've been there. With so many trolls sneaking around here, it's to be expected - have to keep on the alert, and take action at any suspicion. That, and this is a conservative encyclopedia - we are quite open in admitting we have a political agenda to advance. NewCrusader 18:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Understood, but what does any particular view of the history of the Catholic church have to do with conservatism in a political sense? KennyMac 19:02, 15 September 2008 (EDT)