Talk:Catholic theology

Catechism merge discussion

The following discussion 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.

---

• Oppose merge. There are clearly two different topics here. One is a book, which happens to contain the theology of the Church. The other is not a book. Elizium23 (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since the Catechism (one volume) digests doctrine and dogma, it is not speculation; Catholic theology (hundreds-of-thousand volumes) is broader and includes speculation that has not developed to the level of doctrine or dogma. Catechism is a WP:NOTABLE reference work that should remain a separate article. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. They are clearly distinct topics. However, in the spirit of BWalkerJr's comment above, some of the content of this article could be moved to the Catechism article, and this article should be expanded to talk more about theology as such, as a field of study, and particularly its historical development over time. For instance, the article on Science or Philosophy (or on any particular fields therein) does not focus primarily on a summary of all the knowledge in the field but rather focuses on explaining the nature, methods, and history of the field. Theology, "queen of the sciences," should be no different. -hugeTim ^(talk) 19:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 21 November 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus is to follow the parent article and simply use "Catholic". If that article gets moved to Roman Catholic Church then obviously there will need to be a new discussion for this article's title. Old page history at the target moved to Catholic Theology in order to preserve attribution. Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Roman Catholic theology → Catholic theology – The contents of Catholic theology also had discussed a few critical difference between eastern and western theology that were not covered in this article. The Catholic theology page has several problematic phrasing, such as not distinguishing Roman Catholic from Latin Catholic. Seeing that neither page has grown significantly since the above discussions, I merged the shorter article into this larger one (currently named "Roman Catholic theology") to cover this gap. I would further propose this page be renamed "Catholic theology", if simply to match the Catholic Church article. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support, per this ngram. The Anglican and other churches claim to be "Catholic" as well. I think this is only for the purpose of using the Nicene Creed. As the old joke goes, if you ask, "Where is the Catholic Church?" no one will send you to the Anglican church. H. Humbert (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the Roman Catholic Church article should never have been moved to Catholic Church in the first place, because the Anglican Church considers itself part of the Catholic Church (per the two creeds mentioned in the lead of this article) but it does not recognise the Bishop of Rome as its head. Given the first sentence of this article which includes Magisterium and the mention of Vatican II, in the last sentence of the first paragraph, this article is about Roman Catholic theology not Catholic theology. -- PBS (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support It's confusing to have these dueling naming conventions; not to mention the whole "Roman" addition was an appellation created by the anti-Catholic movement of a few centuries ago in order to make the Catholic Church seem like a foreign enemy (q.v. Romanism, Papist, etc.). If Anglicans called themselves the London Catholic Church, PBS would have a leg to stand on. But per Humbert, there's not any actual confusion here. (And there is also some chance for added confusion with the beliefs of the Roman Rite, which is just one of many Rites within the Catholic Church.) -- Kendrick7^talk 19:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Despite identifying myself as a catholic Protestant Christian, everyone knows what you're talking about when you say Catholic Theology. If consensus is for Catholic Church to be there, then this page should follow suit. I might reconsider if the Catholic Church discussion were reopened. --JFH (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Catholic theology. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071014002913/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080411190838/http://www.cuf.org:80/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=191 to http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=191
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080307164255/http://chi.gospelcom.net:80/DAILYF/2003/10/daily-10-08-2003.shtml to http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2003/10/daily-10-08-2003.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619122112/http://www.britishorthodox.org/113e.php to http://www.britishorthodox.org/113e.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060906114843/http://www.newadvent.org:80/summa/100110.htm to http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100110.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071014002913/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080410133140/http://www.pcanet.org:80/general/cof_chapvi-x.htm to http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapvi-x.htm#chapx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080307060913/http://www.religiousherald.org:80/1497.article to http://www.religiousherald.org/1497.article
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060925224311/http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=573 to http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=573
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071222235907/http://wpherald.com:80/articles/326/1/Archbishop-launches-married-priests-movement/quotMarried-Priests-Nowquot.html to http://wpherald.com/articles/326/1/Archbishop-launches-married-priests-movement/quotMarried-Priests-Nowquot.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080329020837/http://www.catholic.com:80/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Visual editor problem on this article?

Has anyone else tried to use the visual editor on the later sections, only to find that they're "stuck" in the reflist and can't be edited except in source mode? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by a page mover) Omni Flames (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Theology (Catholic Church) → Theology of the Catholic Church – Regardless of sub-pages, this is <main subject> of <overarching category or organization>. Per WP:NATURALDIS and WP:CONSISTENCY, see Dogma in the Catholic Church, Sacraments of the Catholic Church, Theology of the body, History of the Catholic Church, Vocational discernment in the Catholic Church, Order of precedence in the Catholic Church, Marriage in the Catholic Church, etc. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 22:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 19:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note that the article was called Roman Catholic theology from its creation until 2015 when it was moved to Catholic theology following the RM discussion above. It arrived at its present title through an undiscussed move in March of this year. —  AjaxSmack  02:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support as a correct reflection of the article's contents. The current title implies that the Catholic Church has a different definition of the term theology than the standard one. However, the topic of article is laid out in the first sentence: "The theology of the Catholic Church is based on..." —  AjaxSmack  02:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose—I'm perfectly fine with the page being moved due to consensus, but I don't like the proposed title. I would like the title before I moved the page, Catholic theology, to be restored. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 04:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Revert the undiscussed page move and restore "Catholic theology." Gulangyu (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Move to Catholic theology. Last move was undisclosed. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 17:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support: matches the data model of the title Sacraments of the Catholic Church or History of France or President of Argentina, i.e. the title is structured as the type of thing or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ("theology") within the range of an organization ("of the Catholic Church"). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• After reflection, OP Could support Now prefers Catholic theology per WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY with Christian theology, and opposes his own nomination. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 04:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC), changed 10:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Observation: 4 votes to move back to Catholic theology, no votes directly against; 2 votes to move to Theology of the Catholic Church, 2 votes directly against. Consensus appears to lie with Catholic theology. Would an uninvolved editor please close and make the move? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment' "Catholic theology" seems fine by me, but I'm mostly just happy when the project isn't using the terms "Roman" or "Papist" -- Kendrick7^{talk although no one can yet tell me how many angels can dance upon a pinhead}

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Catholic theology. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071203120450/http://www.creeds.net/reformed/helvetic/c01.htm to http://www.creeds.net/reformed/helvetic/c01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531175312/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906031754/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225072042/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

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) 10:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catholic theology. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-bible.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410133140/http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapvi-x.htm to http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapvi-x.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410133140/http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Catholic theology. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218041158/http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1006.asp to http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1006.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapvi-x.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Catholic Studies" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Catholic Studies has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 26 § Catholic Studies until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"Catholic studies" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Catholic studies has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 26 § Catholic studies until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Undue Weight?

Could @Pbritti explain how the description of the Devotion to Saint Joseph gives WP:UNDUE weight to the article even after multiple papal exhortations about the same? If not, my contributions may be restored. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Including every popular saint who was the subject multiple papal documents would make this an article about something else entirely. This article is about theology, not devotions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Devotion to Saint Joseph is indeed a subdiscipline in Catholic theology: Josephology Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but so is devotion to quite literally hundreds of other saints. For example, St. Maron and his thought was so impactful that an entire Eastern Catholic church is named for him, yet he receives no mention here. St. Joseph as a subject of devotion is at most a marginal and recent addition to Catholic theology, one that almost certainly does not require even a passing mention on such a broad article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Provide an academic source that notes St. Joseph as a major element of Catholic theology, and you might have a chance for a passing mention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

By that logic Mariology also has negligible notes in secular academic sources other than the Catechism of the Catholic Church but it still has mention in the article. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That's actually quite false: Catholic devotion to Mary and the church's theology regarding her is among the better studied aspects of the church within both secular and sectarian quarters. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

No sources? Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Josephology

Request for Comment: Does the section on Josephology give undue weight to this article?

I am seeking community input regarding the current description of the Josephology in this "Catholic theology" article. I believe that Josephology is central to Catholic theology as major doctrinal topics like Christology, Triadology, or Mariology, which are more widely recognized as pillars of Catholic theology.

I propose that the description of Josephology should be there to ensure that the article maintains a balanced and proportionate representation of Catholic theology. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

To give this topic that kind of weight, I think there would have to be very widespread discussion and/or decrees at the highest levels of the Catholic Church, it's doctrinal offices, by multiple popes, saints/doctors of the Church etc. that clearly affirm it belongs on the same level as the three examples cited above. Such discussion and acceptance would need to be of considerable antiquity. Is this a matter discussed at length by the Fathers of the Church? Are there pronouncements from any of the Ecumenical Councils that teach on this matter in the same way they make pronouncements about the Virgin Mary or Trinitarianism? I am not satisfied that such is the case. It wasn't even until 1962 that John XXIII (controversially) inserted Joseph's name into the canon of the last edition of the ancient Roman Missal (the last before the Pauline reform of 1969). As of now, I am not persuaded. The sources cited seem to be engaging in a form of doctrinal speculation or theologoumenon and that is not something that we can promote. If and when this gains wide spread acceptance verified by formal doctrinal pronouncements we could revisit the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni Sorry to disturb your semi-retirement, but I'd be interested in your take on this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Catholic theology is eternally evolving. Even Pope Francis declared 2021 as the Year of Saint Joseph. So your argument seems trivial here. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The year of St. Joseph is what's trivial compared to the massive amount of discussion of Christology, Triadology, and Mariology from the sources I mentioned above. While it is true that Catholic theology can develop, the Catholic Church has long been wary of embracing doctrinal novelties that cannot be found in the usual sources of authority, i.e. Scripture, sacred tradition, the councils, the consensus patrum, etc. Are there any pronouncements on this subject that carry magisterial weight? I'm not aware of any. How can we arbitrarily elevate a field of speculative theology to the same level as the doctrines covered in the article, all of which have have been the subject of numerous formal dogmatic declarations? Again, we are back to theologoumenon. On Wikipedia, we report what has been reported in reliable sources. Wikipedia cannot give Josephology a status in Catholic theology that the Catholic Church itself has thus far not done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I got in one mention, in a caption. The saints generally are very thinly covered - nothing on martyrs, Doctors of the Church etc. Mostly agree with AO> Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• No more than already present per Johnbod's addition of a brief mention the caption (wholly reasonable and a fine addition). Providing undue reference to Josephology would also reflect more of an anglophone bias than already exists, considering that his cultus is especially active in the English-speaking world while other devotional practices towards other saints have a disproportionate impact but lack English-language commentary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, what everyone else says. What Catholics are required to believe about Mary: conceived without original sin, ever virgin, mother of God, lived her life without sin, was taken up into heaven...

What they are required to believe about Joseph: didn't have sex with Mary, is a saint. Rolluik (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. (Summoned by bot) There are oh so many doctrines that we could go into on this page; I don't see how Josephology is particularly central to the faith. Over on Template:Catholic Church footer, Josephology appears as a "see also" under Mariology. Seems tangential, not exactly a stand-alone tenet. TheSavageNorwegian 14:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

References