Jump to content

Talk:Latin Church

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Latin vs. Catholic

[edit]

@Protoclete: What do you mean by this (Latin and Roman are interchangeable, but Roman Catholic and Catholic are not)? Our article on Catholic Church says in the opening sentence: "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church". How is that not interchangeable? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Protoclete: With those two edits, you removed well sourced content and replaced it with totally different content that claims that only the Latin Church is Roman Catholic, while Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholic. I think you need to reach consensus before introducing such changes. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije, it is simply, factually, false and misleading to assert that Catholic and Roman Catholic are interchangeable. That is not a matter of opinion, it is not up for a vote, but of clear and unequivocal Church self-definition. You can state that, for a limited historical period they seemed so, and define that. You can state that some, English-language sources, use it as such, usually in a derogatory or defamatory way. Or that it has been adopted despite this in some places. But the fact remains that there is a difference, by definition. Now, one can debate whether "Roman Catholic" should be used for "Latin Catholic", as many theologians do so, but the Church documentation does not. Strictly speaking, of course, "Roman Catholic" means Catholics in the diocese of Rome. These kidns of things should be discussed on such pages. But the apologia for a flatly incorrect usage has to stop. it is not only factually incorrect, it is clearly not "Neutral Point of View".
When you have a question about medical terminology, you turn to the medical doctors. You have a question about what a Church calls itself, you turn to the Church itself, and its ecclesiologists (experts in the nature of the Church). The evidence is overwhelming. It does not matter if the Associated Press or Joe Blogger prefer one to the other, what matters is what the Church itself says in its official texts, and you cannot find "Roman Catholic" to mean "Catholic" anywhere in official Vatican usage since 1950, with very few exceptions - and those can and should be explained.
Besides, some of what i deleted was repetitive and off-topic. I didn't get all the way through, but it needed some cleaning up.Protoclete (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Protoclete: Look, whether Easter Catholic are Roman Catholics or not is something about I don't know much. But, what I do know is that current state is misleading and confusing. You edited this article to say that Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics, but the main article (Catholic Church) still says that Catholic = Roman Catholic. We have to maintain internal consistency. We can't have one article saying one thing, and another article totally opposite thing. I don't say that you are wrong, I just say that your way is wrong. If you want to change the way Roman Catholicism is described, you should start from the Catholic Church article, which is the main article on this topic. Since that is very important and busy article, you should first reach consensus with other editors. I am ready to support you if you show evidence of such usage, but we have to make this change in the wight way. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "Name" section has been opened in this article. Recurrent arguments throughout other talk pages about how and when "Roman Catholic Church" has been applied to the Latin Church doesn't really hold sway on Wikipedia unless this is actually sourced and documented in this article. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to create an empty section to prove a point about various talkpage disputes. –Zfish118⋉talk 23:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your previous objection, but has proposed an alternative improvement of the article, more in line with typical updates of articles. Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I grew up Catholic (no longer) in a Hispanic country and I don't really remember much at all of ever referring to the Church as the Latin Church, neither me nor others. How common is this term of Latin Church in the English speaking world? When I first stumbled on this article I thought it was about the Catholics who have mass in Latin and not in vernacular. Thinker78 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a canonical term. Most rank-and-file Catholics aren't aware of the Eastern Churches, non-Roman Rites, details such as canonical ascription, etc. People around me consider themselves Roman Catholic and that's what they know. Others may refer to "Latin Rite" as a perhaps more widespread term than "Latin Church". But even that is limited to academic or canonical discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although in my youth I knew of the patriarchs of the orthodox churches and I was a very involved Catholic, I never knew until today that there are patriarchs within the "Latin" Church, I didn't even know I was in the "Latin" Church. I am no longer Catholic but it is an interesting anecdote. Thinker78 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1 Billion

[edit]

I'm not sure 1 Billion members is accurate. Subtracting 18 million from 1.4 Billion still rounds to 1.4 Billion. –Zfish118⋉talk 18:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My edit didn't state 1 billion exactly, it stated, "over 1 billion members". Besides, I explained in my edit summary that you may not have read that I changed the number because the content in the body of the article states over 1 billion. Also, to avoid confusion, because the Latin Church is part of the larger Catholic Church: its article states that it has "1.3 billion baptised Catholics worldwide". So if you have the Latin Church with 1.4 billion members, which is a part of the larger Catholic Church with 1.3 billion members, something doesn't add up, because why a part of a larger group would have more members. I encourage you to change it back. Thinker78 (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've seen I rearranged the lead to reference the membership of the church as a whole, rather than than that of the Latin Church. I would have no issue with using a common total membership on both thus and the Catholic Church article, and I'd have no issue with either the 1.3 or 1.4 Billion number being selected. However, I would prefer an up to date source be used to support whichever number is used in both articles for total membership of the church. –Zfish118⋉talk 15:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice you rearranged a crucial sentence, so my objection was extemporaneous. Sorry and thanks. --Thinker78 (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

In the lead, there is no need to disambiguate Jesus. Christianity, and the Catholic Church believe Jesus is the founder, and the article about the historical figure is the appropriate target. –Zfish118⋉talk 23:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited

[edit]

"Latin Orthodox Catholic Christian" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Latin Orthodox Catholic Christian has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 14 § Latin Orthodox Catholic Christian until a consensus is reached.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 00:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latin_Church&oldid=1217252218"