Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of the Catholic Church

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

As one the oldest branches of Christianity

[edit]

Is this (the opening line, for heaven's sakes) a joke? "As one the oldest branches of Christianity" - what? The commission of Peter is the foundation of the institutional nature of the Church. To say, in an article presenting the history of the Church, that the Church of Peter, the Church of Christ, the Church of the Very Living God, is 'one of the oldest branches...' is remarkable nonsense. It IS the Church. It is prefectly to acceptable to say that "with the Eastern Orthodox" etc but it is patent nonsense to refer to the Church as a 'branch'; only the East and Rome are the Church - they alone and no others. This is not sectarian rhetoric it is simple historical fact. Whatever else that is noble that exists in protestantism the fact remains that the Church is the Church, both scripturally and historical - not a series of thousands of mini-communes and sects but one Body of believers in communion with the apostles through the Succession. The wording of this article's opening passages needs to be changed to reflect the nature of its truth otherwise its just another internet hotchpotch aimed at nobody.Iamlondon (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about the original Church that Jesus set up? Is that not older than Catholicism by about 300 years? I will admit, Catholicism is "one of the oldest," but it is not THE oldest. Joshua Ingram (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15th Century

[edit]

No mention of the Spanish Inquisition? I feel as though that had enough to do with Catholicism to be mentioned, at the very least. Laneb2005 00:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common Misconception?

[edit]

I read somewhere (I forget exactly) that Jesus was not the son of a carpenter, and that this notion is the result of a mistranslation: Joseph, Jesus's (earthly) father was actually a land-surveyor, a minor official in local government and thus something of a middle-class professional. To the extent that his son took up the family trade is, I believe (somone check me on this) among those details absent from the New Testament, but mention of how he impressed the Rabbis early in his youth, and his subsequent career of preaching and ministering, suggests a religious/Rabinnical education.

Anyways, is there someone out there familiar with the Greek or Aramaic enough to say either way? [Unsigned]


A most uncommon and quite baseless misconception. Lima 05:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Pleased

[edit]

I'm very pleased to see the amount of users who are contributing to this article. This will no doubt evole into quite an ourstanding work. -Husnock 02:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the great falling away from orthodoxy before, during and after the second Vatican council, but that is something which is hard to document without being ostracised. www.danon.co.uk

First Pope of 21st Century?

[edit]

This is what it says under the picture of Benedict XVI, but this is clearly not true as John Paul didn't die 'til 2005.

He was the first Pope appointed in the 21st century is what the intent is. -Husnock 14:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1003 entry

[edit]

Survival of the feared millenium? Can we say urban legend?--24.203.61.236 18:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Page moves

[edit]

A few users have moved this page to History of the Catholic Church, removing the word "Roman" from the title and then purging the article of all references to the word Roman. While I am not entirely against such a massive edit, I feel it should be discussed before such a major change to the article is attempted. -Husnock 05:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i think it's only one user Rchamberlain (talk · contribs), and this guy (i presume male) is a problem that is becoming apparent. i think the admins/arbcom need to become aware of him. r b-j 04:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not its one user, that would be the appropriate edit, since this is talking about the history of the Catholic Church, and not just the Roman (ie, Latin Rite) Catholic Church. This is a problem in other pages too, though, since some english language press tend to conflate the two, even though the church's current practice is clear (for example, it isn't the "Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church" is it?) Protoclete
I think it should be "Catholic Church" w/o Roman since the latter term was only applied after the reformation, whist the historic phrase, "Catholic Church", was in use from at least the early second century. Thus it seems the more apt historic title. Lostcaesar 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If editors seriously wish to reopen this painful discussion (and I see no immediate reason why they would want to), the appropriate place to do so would be Talk:Roman Catholic Church for consistency's sake. Slac speak up! 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support a move to History of the Catholic Church. --121.208.130.219 (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Papacy

[edit]

I have created a page on the History of the Papacy - as distinct from that of the Catholic Church as a whole. Contributions welcome.

Jackiespeel 23:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asia and the Americas

[edit]

I added an entry on the start of Christianity in Asia and on our Lady of Guadalupe, to make this less Eurocentric... --Nino Gonzales 07:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of Peter 70-90 AD!?

[edit]

Including the Gospel of Peter as being from the late first century and from the same time as the synoptics is silly. Nobody mentions the Gospel until about 200 when Serapion briefly allows it before he read it. Most scholars seem to place it somewhere in the second century as it shows influences from the synpotics and John.

Persistent insertion of unverifiable and false statements

[edit]

The early-twentieth-century Adrian Fortescue does say that "Pope Victor I (190-202), an African, seems to have been the first to use Latin at Rome." But the later Josef Jungmann is much more precise: "The transition did not occur at one go. The inscriptions of the graves of the Popes are written in Latin from the second half of the third century, beginning with Cornelius (d. 253). Since even before Constantine there were in Rome more than 40 churches, Greek minorities will have continued to have their Greek liturgy even later than the time of Cornelius, just as Latin communities may already have existed before Cornelius. Even as late as 360 Marius Victorinus quotes in Greek from a Roman oratio oblationis of his time." (my translation from page 65 of volume I of his Missarum Sollemnia - Eine genetische Erklärung der römischen Messe (Vienna, 1949). Lima 08:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, saying that "Transition of Church language from Greek to Latin begins" c. 195 is an unsupported statement. Content must be verifiable.

"Christians believe that although Joseph was the spouse of Mary, his real father is God the Father, the Creator." This statement is made in the context of human generation, a context in which Christians believe Jesus had no father.

"According to the Christian Gospels, both Mary and Joseph are descendants of King David." False. Both Gospel genealogies lead to Joseph, not to Mary.

"Christians believe this (i.e. AD 1) to be the date when the Messiah was born." They do not. They believe Jesus was born while King Herod was still alive. He was not alive in AD 1.

Pope Victor I "Earliest Christian writer in the Latin language." What about Novatian? What writing in any language that is certainly by Pope Victor can be cited? "... attributed later by St. Jerome as the first Latin writer of the Church." Where did St Jerome make this false statement?

"It's dogmatic theology same way muhammad flew on a horse to heaven and back" deserves several exclamation marks. This article is headed "History". Again, "content must be verifiable".

Enough said.

Lima 20:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Jesus rose from the dead"

[edit]

From an encyclopedic and historic perspective, can such phrase be sayd here?. Perhaps to say that he "allegedly rose from the death" or "according to gospels, he rose from the death". As it stands its just a minor mistake, as there is really no proofs that he really rose from the death, against mayor evidence that could opose to that (such as: humans dont usually rise from the death for example, thus Ockam Razor tells us that he probably didnt resurect to begin with).

An additional issue is the claim that the Church was founded by Jesus in Jerusalem. These are not facts that can be verified. The Catholic Church claims this is so, but up to Constantine any worship was clandestine and hence apostolic succession may be very hard to objectively ascertain. I could imagine that the local churches would have had autonomy before Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire and the strict hierarchy we know now was put into place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.166.237 (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We are taking unsubstantiated religious views at face valueTen of Swords (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for a task force on the History of Christianity

[edit]

I have proposed a History task force on Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General which would cover this article among others. Please read the proposal, comment on it and consider joining. --Richard 17:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading lede

[edit]

Currently the first sentence of the articles states:

"making the Church the oldest continuously existing religious institution in history"

This is false, although the argument could be made that it is the oldest continuously existing Christian denomination. Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and other Dharmic religions and arguably Judaism and Mithraism (the latter of which is still extant believe it or not) are older "continuosly existing" religions. If an academic has made this argument, it probably would be best to directly quote them.- WeniWidiWiki 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not "continuously existing religious institutions". Most of them have no institutional structure such as an episcopate. The sentence, as I gather it, is not really talking about religious beliefs, in the vague sense, but religious institutions in the concrete sense (hence: "the Church", not Christianity). That would seem to exclude the examples you gave except perhaps Rabbinic Judaism, depending on how one interpretes the events of 70 and 120 as formative in the institutional structure of Judaism. (PS, "denominations" didn't come into existence until a hundred years ago or so). Lostcaesar 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will just state that I think you are misinformed about the histories and structures of the other religions mentioned, and your above comments seem to indicate a slightly Western POV which is not bourne out through looking at the empirical facts of the matter. If you are hypothesizing the sentence to conform to the highly-structured organization of the RCC POV as being the only quantifiable form of "religious institution", then simply providing a direct quote from a neutral and verifiable source to this effect is the best resolution. - WeniWidiWiki 05:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was just explaining what I thought the sentence meant. And it seems you agree insofar as you seem to concede that the other religions don't have the same level of institutional organization continuously existing in their history, but then make an apology for it. Whatever the case, I'm just sharing what I think the sentence is trying to say - you're free to disagree. Lostcaesar 07:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the lede of the Hinduism entry is making a similar claim (with a strong source), and the Buddhism entry claims that the Sangha monastics are one of the oldest orders on Earth. I am going to change it to "making the Church one of the oldest continuously existing religious institutions in history". - WeniWidiWiki 08:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sounds fair; Lostcaesar 09:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. - WeniWidiWiki 15:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As one of the oldest branches of Christianity..."

[edit]

What do you mean by "one of the oldest"? If the Catholic Church is not the oldest Christian church then what is?

Nestorian maybe?Ten of Swords (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Orthodox Church (a very large branch), and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.176.7 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, since the Roman Catholic Church wasn't formally organized until the Fourth Century, the actual Church that Jesus set up would be considered older by about 300 years. Anybody want to dispute my assertion with actual facts and not misleading statements about how Peter was the first Pope, or something to that effect? Joshuaingram 0025, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Protestant views expunged

[edit]

Twice I've edited the section on the founding of the Church by Jesus to include Protestant views, and twice I've been reverted. Please explain why Protestant views should not be given expression. Is this a polemic for Roman Catholicism, or an encyclopedia article whose duty it is to present all sides fairly? I was under the impression it was the latter. 64.234.1.144 05:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, my edit changed the current text:

To Simon Peter, Jesus had earlier stated that he would entrust to him the keys to Heaven and that upon the "rock" (Latin Petrus, Greek Petros, and Aramaic Cepha actually meaning "Stone") of Peter he would found his Church. The Catholic Church believes the Pope as the successor of Saint Peter and the singular leader of the whole Church on earth. The controversy between Rome and the other apostolic churches over what has been called the Petrine Doctrine is one of several doctrinal controversies that continues to divide the eastern and western churches.

To the following:

According to the Roman Catholic interpretation, Jesus had earlier stated that he would entrust to Simon Peter the keys to Heaven (read as Papal Authority) and that upon the "rock" (Latin Petrus, Greek Petros, and Aramaic Cepha actually meaning "Stone") of Peter he would found his Church. The Catholic Church believes the Pope as the successor of Saint Peter and the singular leader of the whole Church on earth. The controversy between Rome and the other apostolic churches over what has been called the Petrine Doctrine is one of several doctrinal controversies that continues to divide the eastern and western churches. Additionally, Protestant Christians have held various interpretations which conflict with that of the Roman Catholic Church; for example, that the "keys" refer to the authority to preach the Gospel shared by all believers (see priesthood of all believers), or that the "rock" refers to Jesus' own testimony, the act faith, or all the apostles collectively (including the not-then-apostle Paul).
Unsurprisingly, most Protestants deny that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church. Most Roman Catholics on the other hand feel that Protestants are simply rejecting their own history and heritage as part of the universal church, claiming things such as without the Roman Catholic Church, there would not even be a Bible for Protestants to interpret.

Please explain why Protestant views are being excluded from the article. 64.234.1.144 05:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since no reasons have been given for their expurgation, I'll commit the changes listed above, yet again, tomorrow. 64.234.1.144 15:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section could use some references. The Catholic views could be supported by citing the Catechism, Ut Unim Sint might be a good place to get the Catholic/Orthodox tensions acknowledged, and references to Reformers like Luther and Calvin, or some widely-held statement of beliefs by Protestants (not too familiar with that).

Regarding your edit, I'm not sure your last paragraph is encyclopedic, and since the article is "History of RCC" you could be off-topic by using the mention of an RCC doctrine to launch a discussion of Protestant views. Under History of Protestant Communities, such a discussion would be clearly appropriate. Here, borderline at best. To keep it, I'd say couch it in historical terms, rather than in systematic terms. The.helping.people.tick 18:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that I may be off-topic. And in that case, I would like to be directed to where I might include the Protestant view in this article. My reasoning was that if it is encyclopedia-worthy to mention the dispute over Petrine Primacy (between East and West), then it is equally worthy to mention the dispute over Petrine authority (between "Apostolic" and "Protestant"). That some "Apostolic churches" dispute Petrine Primacy is only half of the story; Protestant churches also dispute Petrine Primacy, and go one further, disputing Petrine authority (in any sense). So where should Protestant views be voiced in this article, if not here? 64.234.1.144 00:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way it reads now: "The controversy between Rome and the other apostolic churches over what has been called the Petrine Doctrine is one of several doctrinal controversies that continues to divide the eastern and western churches." It could be changed to "The Petrine Doctrine is one of several doctrinal controversies that continues to divide the Catholic Church from other Christians." I like this because it keeps it very short. More detailed discussion might happen at Pope; if the current link is kept, then the link is right there.The.helping.people.tick 01:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like that revision also. :) 64.234.1.144 02:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

[edit]

Terrible, terrible! The article is not called "Timeline of Roman Catholic history"! It's called "History of the Roman Catholic Church"! If we wanted to make a timeline, great, make a timeline. But this isn't supposed to be a timeline page! It's supposed to be prose. It's a history page, it's supposed to be prose. So, I move we convert all the many, many, many parts of the article that are in timeline form, and convert them either directly to prose, or to proseline and then prose. Agree with me! VolatileChemical (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better to rename this to "Timeline of...." & start a proper history article. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. --Carlaude (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical sentence

[edit]

I take issue with this sentence from the hitherto referenced "timeline" section

He was crucified by the Romans, however, under the political crime of sedition and rebellion as the titulus on his cross indicated his crime clearly as: "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews".

Firstly, is this claiming that being King of the Jews was a crime under Roman law? or does it mean "the titulus on his cross indicated he was king of the Jews". More importantly, can I see a reference on this? I guess this sentence means to say that reputedly his titulus indicates this because I am willing to bet that Jesus' cross has not survived in tact in an undisputed form to modern times (thus making it not "clear" that it indicates ANYTHING).

Info

[edit]

It would be great if we could have a diagramatic representation too. It helps clear things up. There was something like this on many of the Christianity related websites.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.163.8 (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timeline of the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Timeline of the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Catholic_Church&oldid=1211947870"