Removal of sourced content in infobox

First the infobox removed because the Latin Church is "not a denomination". Fine, I'll buy that, so I changed the name of the infobox to "Infobox particular church". Now stuff is being removed because it is "unsourced". Well, please read the article, all the data in the infobox has references. Please stop removing information just because you don't like it. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too many radical undiscussed changes

I began to make some piecemeal corrections, but I find that this complete rewrite is too radical and raises too many questions. A few examples. It presents as certain an editor's opinion that the use of "rite" has been definitively clarified by the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. That Code gave some definitions for the use of that and other terms within that Code. The later Catechism of the Catholic Church did not follow those definitions. The Code said that "rite" was not a matter of liturgy alone. The Catechism speaks of "rite" only in relation to liturgy. It is not clear that "the Catholic Church, today, clearly refers to itself as the “Catholic Church” and not as the “Roman Catholic Church” in all official documents, except in occasional ecumenical contexts". It is misleading to state that "Roman Catholic" is commonly used to mean "Latin Church" without adding that "Roman Catholic" is even more commonly used to refer to the Catholic Church as a whole. It is unclear that the partner of a dialogue with, for instance, Lutherans, the partner that is designated as the Roman Catholic Church, is a representation, as the rewriting editor says, of the Latin Church alone and not of the Catholic Church as a whole. I fear that there is no remedy but to revert completely, so that each item can be presented separately and discussed.

One deletion was justified: that of the notion that the Latin Church began in North Africa. That idea must have arisen from confusion with the idea that use of the Latin language in the liturgy began there. Not the same thing. I have therefore removed that statement. If anyone disagrees with that omission, we can discuss it here. Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found the article very confusing as well. If there is a Latin Catholic Church, that is different from Roman Catholics, then it should be pretty easy to have some numbers here, and geography. How many "Latin"? How many compared to "Roman"-or "Catholic"?. I came here from the Lent article where the term was used, and Wikipedia has what looks like stricter fasting and abstinence customs for these "Latin" Catholics, than "Roman"/Regular-Catholics and I didn't see that in this article. The only difference that I could see is the part about the timing of Confirmation being different. And possibly usage of the Latin Rite-but it really is confusing as it is.2601:C:67C0:F8:800C:5FD6:3C44:DE7C (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be grateful if you would kindly read the revised form of the introduction and indicate what still needs to be done. Esoglou (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean what is the article now? Well-the infobox gives a number, but is that number different from the number of what is known as Roman Catholics or does it include them? I'm jumping-around the different WP articles, and found this statement also--->"The largest by far of the particular churches is the Latin Church, which reports over one billion members"--does that include Roman Catholics or parishioners of Roman catholic churches, or are Catholics who consider themselves to be Roman Catholic a sub-set, of Latin Catholics? I guess where I am confused is in distinguishing between the two and being as precise as possible without being confusing. Is this just another way of saying that they are not Greek Orthodox or other branches? Is it interchangeable? and if-so what would be the best ref. when/where that decision was made (to favor use-of Latin over Roman if that is the case) Thanks!2601:C:67C0:F8:800C:5FD6:3C44:DE7C (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Earlier you spoke about the article. Now you speak about "the infobox". I presume you mean the one headed "Latin Church", and which is therefore about the Latin Church, not the Catholic Church as a whole. So the membership that it gives is that of the Latin Church. If you want to know the membership of the Catholic Church as a whole, you should look for it not there but in the Catholic Church article. An Episcopalian or a Baptist is an Episcopalian or a Baptist whether that person attends church every Sunday or does not. The same for Catholics. Saying someone is a Latin Catholic is not the same as saying that he or she is not a Greek or Russian or Coptic Orthodox or any other group outside of what Wikipedia calls the Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church. I was hoping you would read the revised introduction to the article and would see that a Catholic can be a member, not of the Latin Church, but of, for instance, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church or the Syro-Malabar Church, and still be fully a member of the Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank-you for trying to help me understand about this Latin Church, but it is too confusing, and possibly incorrect. Why would I want to know the total membership in the Catholic Church and NOT the number considered, "Latin" and/or "Roman"? I want to know if the Latin Church number is the same as the Roman Catholic number and if they are separate numbers. In the United States--I think that what you are calling Latin is what we call Roman Catholic-but I'm not sure/confused. I actually just asked an authority in the Roman Catholic Church about this, and they HAD NO IDEA WHAT THIS WAS ABOUT. That is my problem. I don't know where the revised section is-I am commenting on the article as it is currently and to an American reader who is familiar with the Roman Catholic Church it does not make any sense.Yes I know that those branches, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church or the Syro-Malabar Church, are Catholic--including the different ones only seems to be making this more confusing when it comes down to Latin/Roman, that is where my understanding is lost.2601:C:67C0:F8:800C:5FD6:3C44:DE7C (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Catholic_Church says this;"The largest by far of the particular churches is the Latin Church, which reports over one billion members." Infobox with this article says 1,197 million. Which is correct? 2601:C:67C0:F8:800C:5FD6:3C44:DE7C (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On your statement "Some people use "Roman Catholic" to mean "Latin Catholic", but the Church known as the Catholic (or Roman Catholic) Church does not."----I am talking about actual Catholic people. Catholic people ARE the catholic Church. So if they are saying that they are Roman Catholic, the Church is saying that, just so you know. And as pointed-out by others, many parishes are explicitly named Roman Catholic, on their signs. I am not interested in any [[WP:OR)) original research about these numbers, but agreeing on a reliable source(s), about the numbers and I am trying to find-out who these "one billion" Latin Catholics are since i keep seeing them mentioned throughout Wikipedia on articles edited by you Esoglou. Are you saying that ALL Catholics are Roman Catholics? Another way to define Latin Catholics--one that would make it more understandable, for the article, would be to specifically say which Catholics are NOT considered "Latin". I guess the article tries to do that--but it is way too extensive, and makes the topic MORE confusing which should not be the case here. 12:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Adding back my comment, since there was a conflict with the edit by Esoglo, there it goes.) Hi Anom. By reading back your comments (specially the last one right above), you want to know how many Catholics are part of the Latin Church. Let me first clarify some terminology. Acknowledging different uses for the terms in other languages, and even in English in different places, and after much thought/discussion/debate/consensus looking for the best way to present the information, for what concerns to Wikipedia, the "Roman" in "Roman Catholic Church" make reference to the primacy of the Bishop of Pope and the communion of churches with him, which includes all 23 Particulars churches (1 Latin Church + 22 Eastern Churches). This is the use in this wikipedia, it is not only Esoglou, so this indeed means that all Catholics (under the Pope) are referred here as Roman Catholics, and what you call "regular Catholis" are "Latin Church" Catholics. With this being said, the membership in this wiki represents the numbers from the Annuario Pontificio, published I believe in 2011, when Roman Catholics (all Catholics of the world) added to 1.214 billion, out of which 1.197 belong to the Latin Church, and 17 million belong to the 22 Eastern Churches (further breakdown by particular church is available in this wiki if you are interested). Although I don't know the most current breakdown Latin/Eastern, the total number of Roman Catholics in 2014 went up to 1.229, according to the latest numbers I've seen. I do remember seen Eastern Catholics around 21.5 million for 2013. I hope this answers your question.--Coquidragon (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original research

The subsection "Latin Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" contains several unsourced claims. While there is technically a citation following the claims, these are to primary source documents supporting only a very small portion of the original claim. The conclusion drawn would constitute original research, and must either be cited to an outside work, or eventually removed. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latin vs. Catholic

@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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

Catholic Church naming conventions RfC

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention that may be of interest. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roman Catholic Church

Roman Catholic church redirects to Catholic Church. It should be the common name for this article. I'm relucatant to propose merging this into a GA article, but that article seems to be on this subject. It doesn't seem to mention the Marionite or eastern catholic churches. Even if we rename that article, this seems to be a duplicate of the same topic.Seraphim System (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the western-rite Catholic church alone, not the eastern rite churches, which are mentioned on the Catholic Church article. The Latin Church is directly administered by the Pope in a patriarchal role, whereas the eastern churches have an independent hierarchy that is in communion with the Pope in his role as Supreme Pontiff. When the term "Roman Catholic Church" is used, it is most often referring to all Catholics in communion with the Roman Pope, not just the Latin/Western-rite members, therefore, it is more appropriate to redirect Roman Catholic Church to the Catholic Church article, than this article. –Zfish118⋉talk 19:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is meant by the “Roman Pope” the pope can be from any nationality and does not need to be from Rome. Also, this implies there are multiple popes to which Catholics have only one.Manabimasu (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Website

Hello, Is this website of the Latin particular church or the Catholic Church as a whole? Also, the Holy See website provides information on the Catholic Church as a whole not just the Latin particular church.[1]Manabimasu (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2017/04/06/170406e.html

Population

The population in the info box refers to the population of the Latin particular church. While the Latin particular church is the majority of Catholics, the population box is not appropriate for this article and should be only for the Catholic Church article. Vatican provides entire Catholic population [1] not just Latin particular church.Manabimasu (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2017/04/06/170406e.html

“ Head” field

Jesus is the invisible head while the people is the Visible. I will change this to Pope. I refer to Talk:Catholic Church#Head field in infobox. The Latin Church is a particular church so the Pope is the primate as well. Could add both? Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand why the “Head” field may be used as the pope is the head(earthly) in the Catholic Church, but Latin Church he also known as the Patriarch of the West. As many particular churches have a archbishop as sui juris. The pope is also the “archbishop” of the Latin Church. So Pope is still appropriate. The pope has various titles. So for Latin particular church. One could have a “Patriarch” and a “Pope” field. See Pope#Patriarch of the West however this use was discontinued in 2005. I propose, although redundant, to have another field called “Patriarch” in Latin Church infobox to denote the special jurisdiction the pope has over the Latin church. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to proceed per WP:BOLD. PPEMES (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latin Church improvements from Catholic Church?

@Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite: Should some chunks or even sections of text from Catholic Church be moved here? PPEMES (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why? –Zfish118⋉talk 01:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
some parts yes, since some parts in the Catholic Church article talk about only the Latin church (at least after 1054) and not the whole Catholic Church, an Ecumenical Council or something like that.(Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
Would you mind looking into it? Perhaps it could be time efficient as opposed to possibly writing the same things over again? PPEMES (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
of course, the part about the abuse cases in the catholic church should be moved to this article, Since these abuses happen only in the Latin church.(Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC))Reply[reply]
OK. Please proceed per WP:BOLD. PPEMES (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I moved some parts, but the catholic church article is so long that it's a little bit hard to know where to start. (Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

"Western Chalcedonism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Western Chalcedonism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statistics removed

I have been forced to remove some statistics because they were false numbers. They all referred to membership in all 24 sui iuris Churches. Latin Church membership must necessarily exclude members of the Eastern Catholic Churches. It's a little trickier to find statistics on the Latin Church alone, so I'll keep on looking. Elizium23 (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So according to the aforementioned article, membership in the Eastern Catholic Churches amounts to about 18 million, which is a drop in the Latin bucket. Elizium23 (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poorly focused

The long "Theology and philosophy" section I find disappointing, through its repetitiveness of other articles and its getting bogged down in details. Wouldn't it be preferable to concisely mention the main teachings and main differences from other churches in union with Rome, and refer readers to specific articles to study the issues more in depth? Jzsj (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jzsj, agreed. This is stuff that is common to all Western churches and ecclesial communities. I think this article needs to focus on the particular organization of the Latin Church only. Elizium23 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Manabimasu (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 3 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus against move. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Latin Church → Latin Catholic Church – WP:Consistent with 22 Catholic churches Manabimasu (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Categories