Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Archive 17

Okay. I've compiled a new proto-note using only the referenced statements....

• The Greek word "catholic" means "universal" and was first used to describe the undivided Church by Ignatius in the early second century.^[1] After the East-West Schism, the term "Catholic Church" was used in the West to denote those Christians in union with the see of Rome, to the exclusion of the Eastern Orthodox Church and, later, of Protestantism. ^[2]

• According to the 1995 Academic American Encyclopedia, the Church claims "Catholic Church" as its title.^[3] It is the name used by the pope when signing all of the 49 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council including the dogmatic constitution, Lumen Gentium,^[4][5] and is the name used in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the "authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine" created by the Church in 1992.^[6] The Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic writers such as Whitehead and Madrid, state that this is either the proper or official name for the Church^[7][8][9]
• The name Roman Catholic Church is also in widespread popular usage, particularly in English-speaking countries.^[10] It is sometimes used by the Church itself, particularly in documents involving ecumenical relations with churches also claiming catholicity.^[11]. The encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi which Pius XII published in 1943 also used the term. ^[12].
• The name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label that was applied to them by Protestants from the 16th century onward, and which suggests that theirs is only one of several equally valid Catholic Churches. (see Branch Theory.) ^[13][14] Some Eastern Catholics particularly object to this name.^[15] However Cardinal Vaughan argued that For Catholics, "Roman" is legitimate when it indicates not a subdivision of Catholicity, but its unity around a central point.^[16]

• Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" is principally used to refer to the church of the Diocese of Rome.^[17]
• The name Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church has also, at times, been used to designate the Church. ^[18]

After my latest trip to the library, I have noticed that modern scholarship are all in agreement on some very basic points concerning the name of the Church. I propose a note based on these common statements found in these sources and just keep the note short instead of going into all the details:

• Proposed note:Various reference books including encyclopedias and dictionaries as well as Catholic writers, scholars and worldwide Catholic media agree that the Church claimed as its title "Catholic Church" and that it is either used exclusively by the Church or it is its official or proper name. Roman Catholic is a name that originated in the 16th Century and was used as a derogatory name for members of the Catholic Church, it is sometimes used by the Church herself especially in ecumenical discussions with other churches that claim "catholicity" such as the Church of England. Within the Church, Roman Catholic can also mean the diocese of Rome or the part of the Church that uses the Latin rite.NancyHeise ^talk 19:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Against Difficulties: Too many vague terms: "various" (just a few?); "Catholic writers" (authoritative or not?); "scholars" (some that have been described here as such have extremely dubious qualifications for that title); "worldwide Catholic media" (apparently means one US-based cable-TV channel and one US Catholic Sunday newspaper); ... The Church does of course claim CC as its title (among others), but it is wrong to put on a par with this undoubted fact the claim that CC is its official or proper name. It is not agreed that the RC originated in the 16th century. There is no checking against the Church's usage in its actual documents. ... Casts aside the agreed statements ... That's enough for now. Soidi (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that we avoid polling for this or the other note right now. I proposed that we "build a note." I strongly recommend that as an approach. The idea is to collaborate. If someone objects to a particular phrase, they propose an alternate approach or wording. That way, the note will be built by several participants. Everyone should have an equal chance to participate. Those who do not participate, convey their approval of those who do. Would participants be willing to continue with this as an approach? Sunray (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Soidi (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Nancy's "new" proposed note is virtually no significant improvement on the current one and is still highly flawed, prejudiced, objectionable and unacceptable. I agree with Sunray's sensible suggestion as the only practical way forward on this issue. Afterwriting (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, for what it's worth... I was somewhat intrigued by Nancy's citation of the OED. It's not of course a secondary source, but a tertiary one. Still, I thought I'd have a look at what it says... And it seems as though Nancy has only consulted the abridged or shorter OED. Here are excerpts from the full OED definition of "Catholic":

II. In ecclesiastical use. The earlier history of this lies outside English, and may be found in such works as Smith's Dict. Christian Antiq. or in Lightfoot's Ignatius I. 398-400, 605-607; II. 310-312. {Hasper} {kappa}{alpha}{theta}{omicron}{lambda}{iota}{kappa}{ghgrave} {elenis}{kappa}{kappa}{lambda}{eta}{sigma}{giacu}{alpha} ‘the catholic church’ or ‘church universal’, was first applied to the whole body of believers as distinguished from an individual congregation or ‘particular body of Christians’. But to the primary idea of extension ‘the ideas of doctrine and unity’ were super-added; and so the term came to connote the Church first as orthodox, in opposition to heretics, next as one historically, in opposition to schismatics. Out of this widest qualitative sense arose a variety of subordinate senses; it was applied to the faith the Church held, to particular communities or even individual members belonging to it, and especially in the East, to cathedrals as distinguished from parish churches, then later to parish churches as opposed to oratories or monastic chapels. After the separation of East and West ‘Catholic’ was assumed as its descriptive epithet by the Western or Latin Church, as ‘Orthodox’ was by the Eastern or Greek. At the Reformation the term ‘Catholic’ was claimed as its exclusive right by the body remaining under the Roman obedience, in opposition to the ‘Protestant’ or ‘Reformed’ National Churches. These, however, also retained the term, giving it, for the most part, a wider and more ideal or absolute sense, as the attribute of no single community, but only of the whole communion of the saved and saintly in all churches and ages. In England, it was claimed that the Church, even as Reformed, was the national branch of the ‘Catholic Church’ in its proper historical sense. As a consequence, in order to distinguish the unreformed Latin Church, its chosen epithet of ‘Catholic’ was further qualified by ‘Roman’; but see sense 7. On this analogy ANGLO-CATHOLIC has been used by some, since about 1835, of the Anglican Church.

And then, from sense 7:

As applied (since the Reformation) to the Church of Rome (Ecclesia apostolica catholica Romana) = ROMAN CATHOLIC, q.v. (Opposed to Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical, Lutheran, Calvinistic, etc.) ROMAN CATHOLIC is the designation known to English law; but ‘Catholic’ is that in ordinary use on the continent of Europe, especially in the Latin countries; hence historians frequently contrast ‘Catholic’ and ‘Protestant’, especially in reference to the continent; and, in familiar non-controversial use, ‘Catholic’ is often said instead of Roman Catholic.

It's definition of "Roman Catholic" is as follows:

B. adj. Of or belonging to the Church of Rome; = CATHOLIC a. 7.

Now, as I've noted, there are problems using the OED as a source. It is, after all, simply a record of usage. But if the OED is going to be invoked, then let's get it right.

Oh, and for what's it's worth here is the full set of definitions for "Catholic" (albeit without the quotations):

HTH --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the OED backs up what we say here. Other churches claimed "catholicity" but never claimed the name or title "Catholic Church", the attempt made by them was to add the epithet "Roman" as a qualifier of the name of the Rome-based Church.

As far as section 7 goes, I see an error repeated there that has bedevilled some English-language coverage of this issue - the attempt (wrongly) to translate Ecclesia apostolica catholica Romana to = ROMAN CATHOLIC. The correct translation is of course: Apostolic Catholic Roman Church, which has a significantly fdifferent meaning to "Roman Catholic", but which some anglophone non-experts imagine to be the equivalent of their familiar term. Xandar 12:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't pay much attention to the order of the adjectives. "Roman Catholic" is normally - probably always - "catholique romain(e)" in French, as in the French translation of the Paul VI-Donald Coggan declaration. And Latin "Ecclesia Catholica Romana" in both the above-cited encyclicals, Pius XI's and Pius XII's, becomes in the English translations on the Vatican website, not "Catholic Roman Church", but "Roman Catholic Church". The point really is that the same Church that is Catholic is also Roman. Soidi (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And the same church that claims the exclusive use of "Catholic Church" *also* sometimes calls itself the Roman Catholic Church - as is well-established by various documents and other official sources. Also, as the use of "Roman" as a "qualifier" sometimes predates the Reformation by a number of centuries, Xandar's argument is mute on this particular point. Afterwriting (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

However you spin it: "Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" does NOT equal "Roman Catholic Church", these are two different terms with entirely different origins. The use of "Roman" as one of the attributes of the Church has been gone into in great detail. It is used traditionally as a descriptor, along with One, Holy, and Apostolic. Reference to the "Roman Church" is reference to the Holy See or the diocese of Rome. There are ample sources for this and that "Roman Catholic" is a 16th Century largely protestant invention. Xandar 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Xandar disagrees with OED. Who's right? When Xandar said that "Roman" is one of the attributes, along with "One, Holy, and Apostolic", why did he omit one attribute ("One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic")? When Pius XII said the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same thing, was he using only one of the two attributes "Catholic" and "Roman" as a descriptor? There are ample sources also, apart from OED, that "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" is used for the whole Church and not only for the Holy See or diocese of Rome. They include Lumen gentium and a profession of faith for converts. Soidi (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is most helpful, jb. It is interesting that in this case of naming, where we are attempting to show usage, a tertiary source may be appropriate. I agree that they should be used sparingly. Sunray (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a new version of the note, proposed by jbmurray, based on an earlier version by Xandar, here. It would be good to get participant's comments on that. I suggest that if participants have concerns, it would be best to provide alternatives. Sunray (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This note still seems like two people arguing, rather than a matter of fact representation of the issues. It was pretty hard to follow. Also, the note seems to be getting to a size that it could be a stub article on its own (though I think it would be better just to condense the note). --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair comment. How about taking a crack at editing it? If you use strikethrough for text you think is not needed and colored text for additions, your suggested changes will be transparent for others. Sunray (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking Kraftlos comments into consideration I have trimmed JB's version a little bit see . NancyHeise ^talk 18:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

[Removed personalized statement by Jbmurray indicating that he believes that Nancy's version is more than merely "trimming."] Sunray (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the text for the Priest's Declaration of Intention Before Mass as published in official church missals before Vatican 2 ( I suspect the prayer wasn't written by Protestants ).

http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=1755

Please note that this prayer twice refers to the church as the "holy Roman Church", not the "Catholic Church". I suggest that it's stretching credulity to think the reference to the "Roman Church" implies just the Holy See or the Diocese of Rome - or to the Roman rite. The more obvious interpretation would seem to be that "Roman Church" refers to the whole church in communion with Rome - especially in the second use of "holy Roman Church". Afterwriting (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Afterwriting, this time I must disagree with you. The first mention seems to be only about celebrating Mass according to the Roman Rite, "the rite of the holy Roman Church", not the Ambrosian Rite or any other rite. The second mention of "the holy Roman Church" is, I think, also a reference to the Church in Rome, in view of the juxtaposition with the separate mention of "the whole Church militant on earth". Soidi (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This declaration of intention seems to have been inserted in the Roman Missal only with the 1920 typical edition: the Irish Monthly of 1908 speaks of it only as "found in nearly every sacristy in Christendom and every manual of priestly prayer". But it must already have been in use, at least in Rome, at the time of Pope Pius V's successor Gregory XIII, who indulgenced it. Soidi (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretation may be correct but at present I am far from convinced. I will write more about my reasons for this when I'm able. I will be interested to know more, if possible, about the declaration's origins. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see above, I too was intrigued by the question of the origin of this formula. The Google Books snippets from the 1908 Irish Monthly, which you can get to by searching Google Books for "volo celebrare Missam", suggests that the origin is unclear, since they ask: "What is known about its authorship? Does it date much further back than the pon<tificate of Pope Gregory XIII?>" It was not included in the original Tridentine Missal of 1570 (a reproduction of which I have) and, as I said, it seems to have been inserted in the Roman Missal only in 1920. It is still kept in the latest edition (that of 2002 and its 2008 reprint). St Alphonsus and sources derived from him say Pope Gregory granted a 50-year indulgence for it, but the 1920 Missal and some earlier sources say it was a 50-day indulgence. Pius XI increased this to 500 days in 1935. I have no means of finding anything more. Soidi (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked that it is not the original Tridentine Missal (1570)

A note, prepared by Jbmurray has been vetted by others in the sandbox. It now needs to be finalized. Here are some suggested next steps:

• Finalize references in the note. I have suggested this format from the guidelines on footnotes
• Agree on what text (if any) needs to be added to, or removed from, the note
• Move the note here for final vetting and approval by participants
• Assemble the final product, comprising:

- A descriptor of what we have agreed to

- The agreed version of the lead sentence

- The note and supporting references

• Affirm consensus of participants
• Present the results of the mediation on the talk page for a time-limited discussion
• Make the changes to the article.

In sum, we have made considerable progress and there is more work to be done. Those participants who have not indicated their support for, or concerns about, a name change, may still do so in the "Support for name change" section above. Those who wish to participate in the latest discussion about the note may do so here. I would suggest we allow 2-3 days for finalizing the references and tweaking the wording of the note. Then I will move it here for a final look. Hope this is all agreeable (and I know I will hear right away about any concerns). Sunray (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, I would be happy to ping the other participants when a note that has been referenced is up for consideration by the rest of us. I have bowed out of the mediation for now since my efforts to help have been exhausted. I have provided a solid consensus of references that all agree on the most basic fact that the Church has claimed Catholic Church as its title. These sources include all the encyclopedias that have something to say about the subject, all Catholic media and Catholic writers and our only scholarly source The Church by Richard McBrien. I do not understand the efforts of those here who want to create wording that differs from these sources using their own interpretations of original documents. I can not support a note that is not referenced and I hope that the mediation effort now will produce a referenced note that will be defensible at FAC. NancyHeise ^talk 17:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is now a month since anything has been posted on this page. The passage has been disputed for at least a year and it still remains in the article. It was nearly two months ago now that the mediator explicitly authorised a notice in the article drawing reader's attention to the dispute. Some participants to this mediation nevertheless refused to allow said notice or any changes to the disputed passage. Is such a refusal appropriate? Gimmetrow 03:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I think you have misunderstood the role and authority of a mediator. Please review WP:RFM and Wikipedia:Mediation. A mediator is not an arbitrator, a judge or a policeman. This is a misconception that Nancy made earlier. She expected that mediation would determine that certain "illegitimate" editors were ignoring Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and original research. That is not the role of a mediator.

A mediator's role is to facilitate discussion and building of a consensus. Sunray has done that admirably, forging a consensus that I would have thought was impossible.

Making a mistake similar to Nancy's, you are expecting that Sunray's role as a mediator gives him/her the authority to sanction the insertion of a {{disputed}} tag over the objections of other editors. If I have interpreted the mediator's role correctly, a mediator does not have that authority. The decision to insert such a tag must be made by consensus like any other decision on Wikipedia (except those made by ARBCOM or the Wikimedia office). Now, it does seem strange to me for editors to reject the "disputed" tag, especially for an issue under mediation. However perverse that stance might be, I suggest that you let this one go especially since the mediation is about to yield a result that one might hope obviates the need for the "disputed" tag.

--Richard (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no expectation that Sunray has any authority, nor that mediation can resolve user conduct issues, but the user conduct issues need to be brought up, since they are in some ways a bigger factor in this dispute than the content issues. Some editors refused any changes to the text claiming a past "consensus" - a past "consensus" that may not have discussed all possible issues, and so may not have been an appropriate consensus to invoke to begin with. If any new text shows up, will that new text be subject to the same dynamic? Will it take a year to make any changes? At some point most participants here agreed that one part of the text was going to change. Why was that not changed immediately? Will we need to go through another long-term dispute to make any future changes to the article? Gimmetrow 09:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Your expectation that a mediator has authority was implied by the phrase "the mediator explicitly authorised a notice". My point is that it is not the role of a mediator to "authorise" anything. I am personally amenable to having a "disputed" tag on the article but I chose not to add fuel to the fire you were building. I am also frustrated by the "blessed by consensus" attitude taken by Wikipedia editors on this and other articles. I view consensus as being like a river. You can never swim in the same river twice and the consensus of yesteryear is history. What counts is the consensus today. However, I also think that reaching agreement is more important than trying to raise these conduct issues. Among other things, I see no mechanism in Wikipedia to address the issues that you raise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard has outlined the responsibilities of mediators well. To what he has said, I would add that there is considerable weight to a consensus, such as is building as a result of this mediation. Given a consensus, user conduct issues can be dealt with much more simply. It will take some vigilance, though... Sunray (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I add that the purpose of a consensus is to produce a stable version of a contentious section. The stability means that the agreed text should not be changed until another consensus is reached on what changes to make. This is the position that many of us have been trying to defend here. The current text is the result of a consensus of editors. Some people propose changes, and so we are seeking a new consensus. However in the interim the old consensus version should be kept. Otherwise we just get edit-warring. Xandar 19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)