Difference between revisions of "Talk:Roman Catholicism"

Revision as of 13:35, April 30, 2008

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)

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)

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)

Hello! I am "MaveYEL". I joined Conservapedia to contribute in spreading conservative messages and articles through the internet.

The thing that inspired me in making a free online encyclopedia or at least contributing something in a free encyclopedia-styled source of information was Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia is much better than any other internet encyclopedias in many cases, Wikipedia tends to be biased on majority opinions, such as liberalism and evolution (pseudo)science. Although I do contribute to Wikipedia a little bit, mainly because it is to pay back for what I have learned from its articles, I do not think Wikipedia can really be fixed into a neutral encyclopedia with its evolution lies removed.

Conservapedia, as the slogan implies, may really be "the trustworthy encyclopedia". However, it still has a long way to go to become a very reliable source of information because I have seen some articles with blatant lies. Even so, if it is still possible, I will do my best in providing Conservapedia with good knowledge so that it can teach the world with truth that will set the people free from bondage of not knowing the facts of life.

May God bless you and the LORD Jesus leads you to His way to life.

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".

Hello! I am "MaveYEL". I joined Conservapedia to contribute in spreading conservative messages and articles through the internet.

The thing that inspired me in making a free online encyclopedia or at least contributing something in a free encyclopedia-styled source of information was Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia is much better than any other internet encyclopedias in many cases, Wikipedia tends to be biased on majority opinions, such as liberalism and evolution (pseudo)science. Although I do contribute to Wikipedia a little bit, mainly because it is to pay back for what I have learned from its articles, I do not think Wikipedia can really be fixed into a neutral encyclopedia with its evolution lies removed.

Conservapedia, as the slogan implies, may really be "the trustworthy encyclopedia". However, it still has a long way to go to become a very reliable source of information because I have seen some articles with blatant lies. Even so, if it is still possible, I will do my best in providing Conservapedia with good knowledge so that it can teach the world with truth that will set the people free from bondage of not knowing the facts of life.

May God bless you and the LORD Jesus leads you to His way to life.

MaveYEL