User talk:Vaquero100/Archives/Archive 01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 RE: Notre Dame and a welcome
2 WikiProject Catholicism
3 Metropolitan Borough of Westminster
4 Categories
5 Roman Catholic calendar of saints
6 Saints Wikiproject
7 License tagging for Image:Craftsman 2 story.jpg
8 Category titles
9 St Ignatius of Antioch
10 changes to Canon law
11 Taking it off Talk:Roman Catholic Church
12 USA Liturgical Calendar
13 Talk: Roman Catholic Church
14 ND page
15 Category:Dissident Catholic theologians
16 Name of Catholic Church
17 Can you help at the Opus Dei RfC?
18 Reminder
19 Early Christianity
20 CC vs. RCC based on naming conventions
21 Redemptive suffering
22 Query
23 Apologies
24 Massive moves
25 Blanking talk page comments
26 Please stop disruptive editing
27 Signpost updated for June 19th.
28 Over the top?
29 Views of the "Catholic Church"
30 Let's keep things civil
31 John XXIII facing people
32 Signpost updated for June 26th.
33 Hold up with AWB for a second
34 Wholescale name changes

RE: Notre Dame and a welcome

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Vaquero100/Archives/Archive 01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Regarding your question about my revert. The category tag you were trying to add was already located at the bottom of the article and your new edit deleted information (and links) from the side (info) box you were editing. So it was mainly a style thing. Check out some of the links above for more information about editing at Wikipedia. Happy editing. -- No Guru 16:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Catholicism

Hi Vaquero. Would you be interested in the WikiProject Catholicism ? --WikiCats 06:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan Borough of Westminster

Hi. I took out your information about the Archdiocese of Westminster as it did not seem relevant to the city status of the Metropolitan Borough extant 1900 - 1965. It was, however, intersting information which might be better off in the Westminster article. Lozleader 21:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic calendar of saints

Thanks for your words of appreciation. I was already considering offering to answer enquiries you may have about the information in the 2001 Martyrology, but to ask you not to ask too much at one time: it took me longer than I hoped to revise the article. I believe there is a later edition of the Martyrology, with some corrections (very slight in comparison to the full-scale revision involved in the 2001 edition). Unfortunately, I do not have that later edition. Lima 11:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject.

Thanks! --evrik 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Craftsman 2 story.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Craftsman 2 story.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to mark this image for deletion - on the flickr website referenced, it is licensed with a Creative Commons license, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0, which is incompatible with Wikipedia. Do not be discouraged, though! Taking images from Flickr and putting them when appropriate on Wikipedia is a good idea! However, you can only use images that are licensed under "Attribution License" or "Attribution-ShareAlike License". You can search for these types of images here and here, respectively. When you find something you want to put on Wikipedia, be sure to tag it appropriately when uploading - you'll see a dropdown box with a list of licenses and select the right one. For these Creative Commons licenses, you'll need to reference the URL you nabbed it from (as you did before) as well as the Flickr user's username/real name. Good luck, and feel free to contact me with any questions you might have. --Dwiki 00:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank, Dwiki, for pointing me in the right direction --Vaquero100 01:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Category titles

I see that you created Category:Dissident Catholic Theologians. I would like to point out that the title does not conform to Wiki formatting standards, and should be renamed (moved) to Dissident Catholic theologians. Titles on Wikipedia whether for articles or sections, should only have the first letter capitalized unless it is part of a proper name. (See WP Headings: Capitalize the first letter only of the first word and of any proper nouns in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase.)--Blainster 19:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, bad habit of mine. Will change it directly. --Vaquero100 19:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for using it and spreading it around. There are a lot of people to tag! Dominick ^(TALK) 19:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, Dominick, I was glad to see someone already jumping on it! Besides, I'm almost done with the conversion (so to speak!). Thanks, --Vaquero100 19:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess there is a debate about Robert McKenna when I added him to the dissident list, with an individual. Would you like to chime in? Dominick ^(TALK) 18:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

St Ignatius of Antioch

Hi Vaquero,

You changed a section in Catholicism to read:

those like the Latin Rite and Eastern Rite Churches of the Catholic Church which understand "catholic" to mean Communion with Rome as well as Apostolic Succession, following the teaching of St. Ignatius of Antioch.

I'm not sure where it is that St Ignatius states this - perhaps you could clarify? He certainly states that the Catholic Church requires the involvement of a Bishop; but I'm not sure where he states the Bishop of Rome as a defining feature. TSP 15:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

TSP, I realize this is a lengthy response to a simple question. I just did not want you to have to rely on my interpretation or a Catholic interpretation of Ignatius, for that matter. So here is an Orthodox interpretation by Orthodoxy's top patristic scholars:

For a more extensive treatment try this link

--Vaquero100 17:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology in the Early Church (1992)

Publisher's Description

In considering the issue which has divided Christians in the past and still divides them today, a group of Orthodox theologians from different theological perspectives reflect upon the scriptural passages which single out Peter among the disciples of Jesus. Koulomzine ("Peter's Place in the Primitive Church") and Kesich ("Peter's Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition"), as exegetes, read the passages in the light of contemporary New Testament research. John Meyendorff ("St Peter in Byzantine Theology") looks at the history of exegesis: how were these passages read at the time when East and West split, quarrelling about the issue of authority in the Church? Finally, Schmemann ("The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology") and Afanassieff ("The Church Which Presides in Love") look at the meaning of "primacy" as a permanent, through changing, factor of "catholic" ecclesiology.

At a time when an ecumenical reconciliation between Rome and Eastern Christianity appears possible'but when new tensions (or are they actually the old ones?) are surging again'these studies set forth the Orthodox position of the primacy of Peter.

CONTRIBUTORS: John Meyendorff is dean and professor of church history and patristics at St Vladimir's Seminary; Alexander Schmemann (†1983) was dean of St Vladimir's Seminary and taught church history and liturgical theology (1962-1983); Nicholas Afanassieff (†1966) was a professor of canon law and church history at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris; Nicholas Koulomzine is a professor of New Testament at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris; Veselin Kesich is professor emeritus of New Testament at St Vladimir's Seminary.

Taken from THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992)

chapter 4 : "The Church Which Presides in Love" (pages 91-143) by Nicholas Afanassieff who (d. 1966) was a professor of canon law and church history at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris

(1) There is no systematic doctrine of Church government in the Orthodox Church and therefore it is not enough to refute Universal Primacy

"As we study the problem of primacy in general, and especially the primacy of Rome, we must not be ruled by polemical motives: the problem is to be solved to satisfy ourselves and Orthodox theology. The solution of the problem is urgent, since Orthodox theology has not yet built up any systematic doctrine on Church government. And although we have a doctrine concerning Ecumenical Councils as organs of government in the Church, we shall see presently that our doctrine is not enough to refute the Catholic doctrine of primacy." (Afanassieff, page 92)

(2) The earliest Fathers recognized the primacy of Rome (or what might be called "priority") and Orthodox scholars generally concede this

on ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (c. 96 AD)

"Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of 'church-with-priority' at the end of the first century. That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendor...Even as early as the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)....we have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome...We know that Clement was 'president' of the Roman Church...." (Afanassieff, page 124)

"The epistle is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth's eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority....Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument." (Afanassieff, page 125-126)

on ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 AD)

"We find the first direct evidence about the priority of the Roman Church in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. Speaking of the Church of Rome, Ignatius uses the phrase 'which presides' in two passages.... The Roman Church 'presides' in love, that is, in the concord based on love between all the local churches. The term 'which presides' [Greek given] needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the 'first place' at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church...[Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the 'first place.' So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord....In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome." (Afanassieff, page 126-127)

changes to Canon law

Hello Vaquero100. You have used the AutoWikiBrowser to change more than twenty links from Canon law to Canon law (Catholic Church). There are two problems with this: one, we have no article called Canon law (Catholic Church), and two, if we did, links there should not display the parenthetical disambiguation (but instead should be made like [[Canon law (Catholic Church)|Canon law]]). Would you please undo these changes? You can see a list of them here. Thanks. ×Meegs 18:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Meegs, I will change the links. I was unaware that the disambiguation parentheses are to be hidden. As for there not being such an article, there will be shortly. It is one of the oddities of AWB that to get the links for an article you are changing, you have to do it before the change. I will have the article in place shortly. --Vaquero100 18:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop: create this article before making any additional broken links. If you use any of the content from the existing article, Canon law, make sure that you note the source article in your edit summary. Best regards. ×Meegs 18:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, you need to better attend to the changes you make. In a number of places you substituted broken links. (See, for example, Law, which I am leaving as it is so you can see what I'm talking about.) I've never used AWB, but if it doesn't allow you to preview your changes I suggest you use something else that does, so as to prevent this kind of thing.

It's also customary to disucss the matter before you fork an article like this. I'm not convinced it's a good idea myself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a fork. A fork is an attempt to hide POV articles. There is no attempt to hide this. There are a great number of articles with general titles begun as stubs. If the stub authors had had more knowledge of the subject matter or forethought s/he would have anticipated the growth of these articles and and the imbalance between the complexity of Canon Law in the Catholic Church and its use in the other two groups of Churches. This is beginning to happen all over WP. I have brought it up--on the RCC pages. However, you are right, I am guilty of not putting it on the Canon law talk page--but that is only because it gets virtually no traffic. One reason may be that it is a relatively useless article unless it provides some detail. The amount of text for even a cursory review of the subject in the case of the CC would already make the article unsuitable as a combined topic. Beside, what is the problem? I am working on the links, there are 570 of them, and working on the disambiguation page. Hey it is a lot of work. Give me a chance. --Vaquero100 20:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A fork occurs any time an article is split for whatever reason. You're thinking of WP:POVFORK, but that's about a situation where forking is clearly inappropriate. It's a slang term with origins in the Free Software movement, where a project is said to fork if two groups of developers begin to develop is separately. Often this occurs when they cannot resolve a disagreement on its future direction, but it can happen for other reasons too. See fork (software development).

I don't really disagree on the need to split the article, but I'd rather it were done differently. There is considerable common ground in canon law all around, at least in its early history and foundational concepts. Instead of a dab page I would therefore have favored a shorter article covering the general subject, with brief sections on how each groups treats it and "main article" links to more detailed treatments.

Don't assume that just becuase an article isn't edited all that often that no one is watching it. There are many reasons why an article might not get developed all that quickly. Perhaps there are numerous editors who know a little about a subject, enought to start an article or summarize it but not enough to write in detail. (As I suspect is the case here. A class session or two on canon law just isn't enough background.) In any event, a note on the talk page about your intentions would at least have been courteous, and a lack of replies over the space of a few days would have justified you doing whatever you wanted without argument. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, by "broken links" I meant not redlinks, but links that are syntactically incorrect, such as "[[Canon law (Anglicanism)". TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, TCC, for your comments. Please know that I was not attempting anyhing that would be offensive to anyone, just more functional. I will follow the procedure you outlined in the future. I think your idea on a brief common article is a good one, so I will leave the original as it now stands and begin developing the CC article. I know what you mean about hesitating to contribute. I have been thinking about this article for a couple of weeks. My six graduate credits dont really qualify me to say much either, at least no without a copy of the CIC in one hand! The Ansomniac, --Vaquero100 08:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're doing lots more substituting of links, it might be worth bearing in mind that Canon law (Anglicanism) does not currently exist, and as far as I can see is unlikely to exist - the various Anglican churches do not have a unified code of canon law, so if the article does break of it is more likely to be into Canon law (Church of England) or similar. I don't know about Canon law (Orthodoxy) Most articles mentioning canon law in general should link to Canon law itself, from where people can go to the relevant sections, rather than linking to all three putative articles. TSP 14:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point, all links should be correct. Let me know if you find one that is not. --Vaquero100 21:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking it off Talk:Roman Catholic Church

Please get that chip off your shoulder. Whatever problems you may have in your neck of the woods being Catholic is neither here nor there as far as interaction on Wikipedia. (I've frankly never heard of "fisheater". But I suppose that explains the name of fisheaters.com this website.) If you read what I wrote carefully, you'll find I was quoting others and not speaking for myself. Personally, with as many Catholic relatives as I have, I have reason to be more sensitive. As to "true colors", Dominick showed his first. You are not looking, for some reason, at what I was acutally complaining about, and contrary to TSP's assertion, it was you who dragged the conversation into a different direction. I intended nothing more than a brief objection to Dominick's implication, and used "Papal church" in that place only because I was addressing his "astonishment". TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no chip on my shoulder that can't be fixed by some justice. I am as interested as anyone in moving forward. But real progress can only be made on the basis of justice. So, while I work on a way forward, I also work on the matter of justice. You may recall that I contributed the concept that will carry us forward. However, there is an ongoing debate. Unless we put it to rest now, we have only begun to dispute. Will you help get this chip off my shoulder or not? --Vaquero100 03:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a point to my saying anything? I have already indicated I was in general agreement with what was being discussed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

USA Liturgical Calendar

Surely 15 August and 8 December are not demoted in USA to the rank of Feast? "January 1" (brackets missing) seems to be the same in the US Calendar as in the General Calendar, and so is not a variation. Holidays of obligation are a matter, strictly speaking, of canon law, not of liturgy, and do not belong in a liturgical calendar. As well as being out of place, the inclusion in national liturgical calendars of indications of which days are holidays of obligation - by the way, surely Christmas is also a US holiday of obligation? - would lengthen these calendars yet further: the General Calendar indicates not even one holiday of obligation, and so every single holiday of obligation in every single country would have to be listed. Lima 04:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So are you suggesting an entire other article and listing for holy days of obligation? It seems they are worthy of record, if not here than elsewhere. I myself would be very interested in a comparison of days of obligation among nations. How would you suggest we procede? VAQUERO100 (some date)

I didn't realize your response would only be on your own page. (I am not in the habit of checking your Talk page.) As a result of what you have written here, I have checked Wikipedia and found that "an entire other article" already exists, under the title Holy Day of Obligation. Lima 18:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Roman Catholic Church

I'm trying!

I've just proposed another form of words over there, which I hope answers at least some of your objections. See what you think. TSP 17:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That's OK - one problem with Wikipedia is that it's always really hard to get across tone and so on in written-only mediums. (That's why so many flamewars happen on IRC channels, in newsgroups and so on, between people who would probably get on really well in person.) I've got annoyed at times and probably said stuff I shouldn't too.

I'm trying not to put over an Anglican POV - to be entirely honest, Catholicism (in the sense of apostolic succession and all of that) isn't a big part of my personal faith (as I say, the church I attend at the moment is fairly low-church) so I might not even know what the general Anglican opinion on the whole thing is. (I think that User:Fishhead64 DOES have strong views on this, though.)

My problem (as in, the thing that I see as limiting our options) is that the decision has already been made on the Roman Catholic Church page to call that page Roman Catholic Church (we COULD re-take that vote, but it's pretty recent and was by a pretty big majority, so I'm not sure that's justified); and that seems to be a consensus we need to take into account in further decisions. (Too many brackets, but you get the idea.) I was happy for that page to move to Catholic Church; but given that that decision has been made, and by more editors than are involved in the current debate, I don't really see how we can overrule it. TSP 14:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings to you also! I could until recently have greeted you from Durham University; but I have finally, 5 years after graduation, got a job that isn't with the university I graduated from (having previously worked for a college of the university, an academic department of the university, a service department of the university, and the students' union of the university); so I can only greet you from not-particularly-sunny Sunderland instead.

I wish you good luck with the patience; it seems to be something that Wikipedia requires a lot of...

- Tim (TSP) 15:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

ND page

Hi, and you're welcome. Unfortunately I don't have any experience with info boxes, so I can't help you there. I think the page is looking better, but still needs some work. I'll come up with some suggestions and post to the Talk page. Happy editing! --mtz206 (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Dissident Catholic theologians

Hello Vaquero. You've moved all of the articles out of Category:Dissident Catholic theologians and blanked its text, but this is not the same as deleting the category. Since you created the category — and relatively recently — we can probably have it speedily deleted without debate. If that's what you want, all you need to do is add the template {{Db-catempty}} to the category page.

Oh, and in case you did not see it, I replied to you AWB question on my talk page a few days ago. Regards. ×Meegs 09:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Meegs, for the pointer. --Vaquero100 10:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Name of Catholic Church

"Catholic Church" is the normative name by which the Church is known to the world and by which it calls itself in virtually every public document.

Has the Church ever declared "Catholic Church" to be its "normative name"? For every instance in which the Church calls itself "the Catholic Church" in a public document, you can easily find hundreds in which the Church calls herself simply "the Church". Lima 04:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Church calling itself "the Church" is like the president of the United States of America calling his country "America." It is just shorthand. Still, you need to do some reading. --Vaquero100 09:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Quod gratis affirmatur gratis negatur. One might as well say "Catholic Church" is just shorthand for "Roman Catholic Church" (which it isn't). Why not do some reading of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? How many times will you find in it the name "Catholic Church"? Yes, the title is one time, but how many times within the book? (I have counted them, but I have of course made no attempt to count the multitude of times that the term "the Church" is used instead.) Was the Catechism written in shorthand? In Lumen Gentium, how many mentions of "Ecclesia" (and "Ecclesia universalis") do you meet before you come across the first "Ecclesia catholica"? Was this document also written in shorthand?

Quod gratis affirmatur gratis negatur also about the Church having a "normative name". Perhaps it does. But it has not yet been brought to my notice. Arguments (non-conclusive ones)like that in the Catholic Encyclopedia and the other one you quoted I have already seen.

Lima 12:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you help at the Opus Dei RfC?

Hi Father! There is a request for comments at the Opus Dei Talk Page. I fear some anti-Opus Dei guys want to turn things upside down in the name of their own notion of neutrality. The previous editors continue to argue in terms of official Wikipedia:NPOV policy, i.e. writing in proportion to the importance and reputability of sources, but the new guys seem to have their own ideas on how Wikipedia should be written. They are anti-authority; they resent the dictatorship of Jimbo Wales. Can you help and give some comments? Just a few sentences will be a big help, perhaps to confirm Wikipedia policy. Thanks! Walter Ching 06:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

Image:Benedict XVI.jpg

This is a reminder to go vote by June 7 for the
Catholic Collaboration of the Week.
Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration.

Early Christianity

In a matter of hours, I leave on a journey of just a couple of days. Perhaps you would like to keep an eye on Early Christianity. Lima 13:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

CC vs. RCC based on naming conventions

Naming Conventions:

The three key principles are:

The most common use of a name takes precedence;
If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
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)

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

To determine the balance of these criteria, editors may find it useful to construct a table like the following:

Criterion	CC	RCC
1. Most commonly used name in English	1	0
2. Current undisputed official name of entity	1	0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity	1	0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

Redemptive suffering

Can you please help with the article on Redemptive suffering? It's a rather complex theological concept, and I'm not sure we're getting it quite right. Thanks in advance. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 18:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Query

I quote from a recent edit summary posted by you on Anglicanism:

Anglican evils are innumerable

Do you really think that this is an appopriate way to characterise brother and sister Christians? Regardless of your strong feelings about the expression of Christianity in your own denomination, I don't think it is helpful or kind to describe another denomination in these terms. I realise I am guilty of passionate dialogue from time to time - although I hope I've never said anything critical about Roman Catholicism - so I know the perils involved in long-distance dialogue. In the kindest possible way, I wasnt to suggest that you review WP:Civility, which I find to be a helpful reminder for me from time to time. Cheers! Fishhead64 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't take my comments in the spirit in which they were intended, that you perceive my denominational tradition as criminally culpable (and certainly, neither of our traditions have clean hands in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation), and that you perceive me (and, I suppose ARCIC) as cruel and unjust. Fishhead64 00:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have Irish roots as you seem to display a hostile attitude towards the Anglican church combined with an ignorance of Anglicanism elsewhere in the world. I would point out that the name of the Commission is the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, this was a jointly agreed name between the Roman Catholic church and the Anglicans not an example of Anglican atrocity. Your claim of the sole use of Catholic for your denomination is an example of an attempt to deny the catholic nature of other churches. You also are not telling the truth about Roman Catholic's not being allowed to practice their faith under pain of death. This may have occurred at some times and in some places but not for all followers of the Church of Rome as I pointed out, usually only priests and it did not continue for three centuries. Tithes were paid in England in one form or another until well into the 20th century (and by all people not just Catholics). In other places they were abolished at different times if they were ever imposed. In Ireland they were abolished when you stated but this is particular to one place not worldwide Anglicanism and it was not anti-catholic but were the way of supporting the established church. They had to be paid by Presbyterians and other non-conformists as well as Catholics. Dabbler 01:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am so anti-Catholic that I married one and attend a Catholic church (albeit without converting). Now my grandfather was definitely anti-Catholic I agree, but I have moved on from my ancestral prejudices. Obviously not all of us have. As for my racism, your "shame" about your English roots displays your racism openly. Dabbler 01:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

Regarding Neo-Renaissance, please accept my apologies if i have been discourteous. I stumbled across the article and it didn't seem to have been edited (other than the odd tweak) for about a month, I was impressed by it's quality and so was bold and submitted for peer review. No offence was intended, actually the reverse. --Mcginnly 00:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Massive moves

Please stop moving articles en masse and without discussion. This is not the way we do things here; we operate by consensus, especially for controversial moves, which should be proposed at WP:RM. Regards, Septentrionalis 18:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Blanking talk page comments

After being warned that blanking others' comments on talk pages was considered vandalism, you went and did it again. This, combined with your three-fold reversion of a subheading in the article compelled me to request that your editorial activity on Anglicanism be investigated by admins, which I suppose will result in a warning. I didn't want to post a block warning myself. Honestly, Vaquero, I just think you need to get away from WP for the day, enjoy a walk, and cool down. Which is what I'm going to do. Fishhead64 22:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Google reveals over 599,000 instances of the term "Roman Catholic priest," two of the top ones are from the US Department of Labor and Catholics Online. It is scarcely provocative, and it is the term I use regularly - I'm certainly not singling you out. In any event, the point is that my comments are my own, and by editing things to which my name is attached, you are changing what I am saying. And I find it hard to imagine any justification for editing out my warning to you that such editorial activity is considered vandalism. That comment was clearly advisory, not provocation. Fishhead64 01:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What have I ever said that was anti-Roman Catholic? Anything? Ever?

With regard to the issue at hand - it is not all about you. Fishhead64 01:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm relieved at least that you cannot cite any anti-Roman Catholic statement or edit. Speaking of which, which disruptive edits to Roman Catholic Church, that you credit to me, are you referring? My comments have been limited to the talk page, and you have been a willing interlocutor.

It is difficult to take seriously the proposition that I wish to "eliminate the use of the Catholic Church's name," especially when I use the term "Catholic Church" to refer to your denomination repeatedly. A cursory "find word" search of my recent edits to Anglicanism will bear this out.

You have a certain trope in your mind, and so you don't read what I actually write, which is that the term "Roman Catholic" should be used in titles when the term "Catholic" would be ambiguous. Your recent revert of the subheading "Catholic Church" in Anglicanism is a prime example of ambiguity. The content of the articles themselves I have absolutely no issue with, or even with the titles of certain articles.

It is difficult to perceive how a position on naming conventions in the titles on an online encyclopedia reveals an anti-Catholic bias. Your comments and edits concerning Anglicans and Anglicanism over the past several days (e.g., "Anglican evils," "500 years of anti-Catholicism," and Anglicans "drift[ing] further and further from anything resembling the gospel and the historic church"), does reveal a rather persistent bias against Anglicanism.

Moreover, it is difficult to understand your objections to the use of the term "Catholic Church" by other Christian denominations. Why is an exclusive stake on the name so important to you, and what is at stake for you in having other movements self-identify in this manner? Are you afraid there will be "brand confusion," or is it you who wish to stake an exclusive moral claim to the term?

As for me, I am angry when inaccurate edits to the main article on a major tradition are edited and reverted to be edited in again. I defy you to cite a single example on Roman Catholic Church in which I have behaved similarly. Apart from a section on ecumenism, which has been largely untouched, my edits have been exclusively to the talk pages, where they belong. I don't become angry by discussion - in fact, you will have discerned by now that I enjoy the give and take of theological dialogue. It's an Anglican thing. But I do get upset with abusive editing. Fishhead64 02:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Our disagreement grieves me because you cannot seem to appreciate that a legitimate, divergent opinion might exist that does not represent bias or intolerance; you are unwilling to brook compromise; and thus the debate between us (and, let's face it, it really is almost entirely between us) is intractable. I cannot accept a single interpretation of the term, and have only asked that in cases of ambiguity, a perfectly acceptable and well-used alternative name, specifying the Catholic communion in question, be used. This seems to be in accord with your own willingness to accept that other denominations may self-identify in this way. If that is the case, then why not accept the "Roman" caveat in certain instances, which does, after all, get over 32 million Google hits - most of the top ones being either positive or neutral concerning the institution? You have never advanced a legitimate argument that this name is derogatory, invalid, or inaccurate.

As for my tone, well, obviously I can't take responsibility for how you choose to perceive it. All I can do is assure you that my intent is to advance my opinions cogently. I don't view this as a wrestling match or battle or whatever other conflictual metaphor. For me, it is a theological dialogue between passionate priests who take their traditions seriously. I think that is a good thing, and it has made me think deeply about my own convictions, and how best to express them. I remain hopeful that we will reach a conclusion in which both our points of view can coexist in WP. Cheers! Fishhead64 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop disruptive editing

There is a content dispute over the term 'Catholic', there are strong feelings here and civil discussion is what is required. (Some Roman Catholics feel strongly that 'Catholic Church' refers only to them, many Protestants consider themselves also to be Catholic - and feel deeply offended by this). Tempers can rise here. Wikipedia seeks neutrality and not the victory of any one point of view over annother - but if we are all to work together we certainly need to respect differing opinions and assume good faith. Edit summaries such as this [2] and this [3] - accusing other editors of bad faith and bigotry are unhelpful (and unChristian). Please cool down. --Aoratos 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 25	19 June 2006	About the Signpost

Foundation hires Brad Patrick as general counsel and interim executive director	NY Times notices semi-protection policy
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Undeletion of images now made possible
Adam Carr's editing challenged by Australian MPs	News and Notes: Project logo discussions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Over the top?

When did I ever accuse you of being that? Fishhead64 03:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand now - you're confusing me with another editor. Fishhead64 03:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I accused of that for this set of edits. Your latest edit was a mixture of good editing and nonsense (including posting this random url in the article: chttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_link.png). If it's a mistake, please be more careful. If you intended to dump nonsense into the article, it is vandalism. — Gareth Hughes 17:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean Vaquero - that wasn't my edit. I'm trying to be a good Anglican and find a mediating position! :) Fishhead64 19:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Views of the "Catholic Church"

Thank you for your thoughtful and understanding note. I should like to reply in kind, but will need some time to respond with equal depth. Please be assured in the meantime of my good intentions, and should I ever at times fail to be understanding or considerate in my exchanges, I apologise. Fishhead64 20:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is long, so I will not be offended if you archive it or delete it after you read it.

Vaquero, as you indicate, we are all products of our particular environments, which inform our perceptions. I am grateful for your note, because it suggests an openness to rapprochement, but nonetheless I still detect a “right vs. wrong” mentality, for example, in your description of my views as “wrong-headed.” This does not indicate a difference in perception, but a difference in correctness. In fact, we just happen to disagree – and we disagree for very good reasons. We both consider ourselves to be Catholic priests in the Catholic Church, but that means different things to each of us. And therein lies the difficulty, insofar as we are both right…”right-headed,” if you will.

I come at this issue with two convictions:

The use of the term “Catholic Church” has two distinct meanings: First, it refers to the Latin Rite churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome; and second, it refers to those churches which make a creedal confession of membership in the Catholic Church and/or assume membership in the Church by maintaining self-identified marks of catholicity.
The term “Roman Catholic Church” is a non-controversial, accepted alternative designation of the first meaning. It is one that is widespread, at least in the English language. Whatever its historical origins (and I confess ignorance in this respect), the term has gained enough currency in discourse that it has been adopted by the institution itself in certain contexts. From my perspective, this indicates that it is a component of the institution’s self-identity, and not a term like – say – “faggot” is to gays, or “nigger” is to blacks. This is not something, therefore, imposed upon the institution, as it exists in its contemporary form. It is, rather, a lexical convenience in the English language, in order to distinguish which of the two meanings are being conveyed.

I frankly think the historical situation is beside the point. In the first place, most people, I think I can safely assume, don’t know of it, and so their usage is not informed by ancient national biases. In the second place, it is irrelevant, because by no stretch of the imagination can the term be considered derogatory or disrespectful. Ian Paisley, for example, has no problem using the non-specific term “Catholic” in his defamations of your denomination – as a Presbyterian Protestant, the division is an uncomplicated one in his understanding of Western Christianity, and “Roman,” “Roman Catholic,” and “Catholic” is all the same “popery” and “papism” to his disordered thinking.

For what it’s worth, the designation is perhaps an important one to Anglicans because of the mainstream Anglican self-perception that ours is a tradition that is both Catholic and Reformed, a phenomenon to which you allude in your note. Anglicans see a continuity between the Ecclesia Anglicana pre-1534 and Anglicanism post-1534: The same provinces existed, the same bishops were in place in the same cathedrals, and the same convocations and chapters met in council. Apart from the Cromwellian interregnum, the Catholic character of the national Church was never repudiated, and thus it is fully understandable that the body continued to call itself Ecclesia Anglicana, i.e., the Church of England, and that those subjects who continued to acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome should come to be known as Roman Catholics – that is, Catholics in communion with the See of Rome rather than the See of Canterbury.

So much for a possible explanation of the origins…what about now? Is this designation unjust or uncivil? I’ve thought long and hard about this, since we all want to do the right thing, after all, while remaining true to our convictions. Well, the first thing I notice is that there are many Catholic Churches with the name “Catholic Church” fixed into their title, designated by their character, geography, or communion – as you well know. There are Armenian Catholics, and Assyrian Catholics, and Old Catholics; the Eastern Rite churches are known as Eastern Catholics, and so on. Even though they consider themselves as Catholic as the pope, so to speak, there is no strong objection to a specific designation, so as to avoid confusion with outsiders. And similarly, the Latin Rite Catholic Church, the Western Church in communion with Rome, has appropriated the title “Roman,” and applied it to itself, in recognition that others claim membership in the Catholic Church while not recognising the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Even the Orthodox, whom you cite as having been given this colloquial name in the West, are known as “Eastern” and “Oriental” – or even “Russian” and “Greek.” The issue is perhaps not so controversial, because in English, the Orthodox Church means only one thing, since it does not imply a shared confession of faith.

The difficulty, as I said, is that no one is right or wrong in this debate, since we are talking about engrained lexical commonplaces, and there is no impartial way of adjudicating the more ultimate or existential claims. It would be nice if others didn’t get to define us – I don’t know about you, but I’m defined by others on a daily basis. There are many things I cannot claim exclusively of myself – my Catholicism, for example, or my nationality. I know that I am Catholic, but that I am also Anglo-Catholic; that I am Anglican, but also a Canadian Anglican. And much is implied by those designations, in my own self perception and in the perception of others. Hence, this is not a matter of Anglican domination: I am sure you do not have to provide a caveat in everyday conversation when you call yourself a Catholic, as I must do. But it is the responsibility of an encyclopaedia to be held to a higher standard of accuracy recognising the diversity of meaning of the “Catholic Church” of which I spoke.

I just want to end this overly long missive on a personal note. I was born and raised in south-western British Columbia, an extremely secular part of a secular country. It is a place that has, blessedly, been relatively free of ethnic, sectarian, or communal strife and oppression (the deportations of Japanese in WW II is the only significant example which comes to mind). I live in a metropolitan area in which a third of the inhabitants do not have English as their mother tongue, and in a municipality that has the highest visible minority population in Canada (60%). The only reason I mention this is that, while I am not blind to the tribalism that so infects of human life, I do not have a lot of personal experience of it. My family was not religious, and the Anglicanism I know I learned as an adult at a liberal, broad church parish, and at an even more liberal, ecumenical seminary. As a priest, I have become involved in ecumenical and multifaith dialogue, Many memories flood in: The honour of joining my bishop, Michael Ingham to hear Cardinal Francis Arinze speak at Westminster Abbey in Mission, BC a few years back, to meet him, and to meet and become acquaintances with some of the seminarians I met there. Regularly saying mass for a community of Catholic Worker women living near my former parish. Joining the fathers at the Scarborough Mission near Toronto for mass, sharing meals with them, and experiencing their wise counsel. So I am particularly grieved when you speak of my motives as reflecting an explicit or latent anti-Catholicism…because I feel nothing but affection for my brothers and sisters in your denomination, and, in fact, consider myself to be part of the same Catholic tradition.

But, as I say, I’m aware of vicissitudes of tribalism. So after I received your note today, I called two friends. One, a “broad church” Anglican priest from Australia, the other a retired Roman Catholic priest. I asked my Anglican friend which term he used for your denomination, and he said, “The Roman Catholic Church.” “Why?” I asked. “Because ‘Catholic Church’ has more than one meaning,” he said. When I asked him if he thought Roman Catholics might be “put off” by that, he was baffled. “Why would they?” he asked. After hanging up, I thought, “well, he might be infected with the same biases as I am” (since he was so precisely articulating my own thoughts). So I called Michael. I asked him if he felt that the term “Roman Catholic” might be considered inaccurate or derogatory to describe him or his denomination. I thought that he might say, “Well, we put up with it,” or something, but he surprised me by saying, “No, I’ve always regarded myself as Roman Catholic. It just means a Catholic in communion in Rome.” He went on to talk about all these other Catholic churches in communion with Rome that are not Roman Catholic. He ended with an anecdote of his own – a colleague who changed the sign in front of his church from “Holy Name Catholic Church” to “Holy Name Roman Catholic Church.” He ended by saying, “Roman Catholics are proud to be in communion with the Pope, so why would we be insulted?” I actually found these comments faintly disquieting, because they diverged so completely with what you and some others have said on Wikipedia. I don’t really know what to make of it.

One thing I do know, however, is that I’ve heard nothing to alter my own convictions that “Roman Catholic” is perfectly acceptable nomenclature, and that using it in cases of ambiguity in article names is preferable. I really wish I could share your convictions, but my conscience and common sense won’t allow me. I’ve left the whole issue alone for several days now, because I feel the conversation is circular and non-productive. But you deserve a thoughtful response to your thoughtful note, an assurance of my good will and collegial regard, and explanation of the convictions I intend to pursue, hopefully to a mutually acceptable compromise. Fishhead64 03:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep things civil

Vaquero100, You have been making some very excellent contributions to Anglicanism (and elsewhere). However, try to keep you comments civil, even in edit summaries. This edit summary was neither helpful as an edit summary, nor constructive. Thanks. –RHolton ≡– 03:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

John XXIII facing people

In St Peter's, where the apse is to the west, the Popes have always celebrated Mass facing eastward towards the people. The people side of the main altar is occupied with the "confessio", leaving no room for the many steps you see in the photo. Lima 04:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Lima.

I was looking for clues in the photo and missed the obvious altar steps!

It sounds like some religious mother houses where the "congregation" was the religious seated in the choir and the people were "observers" looking in from the nave. In this case it would have been the Roman Canons who I'm guessing are the Cardinals or other curial officer holders(?).

The old main altar in the Basilica of the Sacred Heart at Notre Dame was made for saying mass in either direction with the "congregation" being either the religious in the choir or the people in the nave.

This was helpful, thanks. --Vaquero100 13:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 26th.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 26	26 June 2006	About the Signpost

Quicker deletion of non-compliant images proposed	News and Notes: 100 x 1,000, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hold up with AWB for a second

Please, hold up for one second. There are a couple of problems. I will list them.

Your edit summary does not say what you are doing.
I assume you are looking for "Roman Catholic" and replacing it with "Roman Catholic Church|Catholic". You must instead look for "[[Roman Catholic]]" and replace it with "[[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] to prevent from double-piping links (which doesn't work, see the second change in this diff) —Mets501 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Also, there is no reason to change "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" in the the article, so please just change what article it is linked to, instead of changing the article text. —Mets501 (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing. It has been agreed that using AWB just to bypass redirects in not necessary. If anything, you must just change where it is linked to, not the article text in any article, but it screws things up like this, because now it is out of aphabetical order. —Mets501 (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wholescale name changes

Your wholescale change of links to the article Roman Catholic Church with [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic Church]] is being done without consensus and is being reverted. As the Wikipedia article in question is named Roman Catholic Church it is felt by the community to a proper and fitting title, and may be used in any or all articles. If you wish to see the article's name changed you may do so through the appropriate channels, but you may not use pipe links to simulate a name change without community consensus. As your edits are against the wishes of the community, they are considered to be vandalism. Continued edits of this nature will lead to your immediate blocking. Also, note the use of AWB to perform this task may lead to its deactivation (read the rules). — Gareth Hughes 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That could have been put in a much nicer way. I don't think that Vaquero100 was trying to do anything that was intentionally against the rules so he could get something his way. —Mets501 (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted comments. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 18:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)