Disputatio:Schisma - Vicipaedia

# Disputatio:Schisma

### E Vicipaedia

shismaticorum aut hereticorum?

Schismaticorum, in primo... Heretica fabulast. Secundo, movendus hic ad Schisma (catolicum) aut aliquid modo. Schisma est separatio, et verbum fere debet includier apud victionarium non paediam.--Ioshus Rocchio 02:48, 4 Maii 2006 (UTC)

## [recensere] Schisma versus Haeresia

Haeresia peius est quam Schisma (ex opinione ecclesiae catholicae). Ecclesia orthodoxa et anglicana ecclesiae schismaticae sunt. Non magnopere ab fidei recta aberrant. "Solum" papae oboedire nolunt. Sed Protestantes vel Lutherani Haeretici sunt. Errant in res fidei. Presbyter orthodoxus vel anglicanus presbyter catholicus fieri potest si ad ecclesiam catholicam mutat. Presbyter lutheranus hoc facere non potest. Alex1011 20:20, 2 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

  Plus...meo animo, verbum "Haeresia" habet POV magniorem quam "Schisma"...--Ioshus Rocchio 21:51, 2 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

## [recensere] Concerning this Article

First off I would like to state the reason for my reversion of Iacobus Amor. The reason I reverted Iacobus, is, because his edits concerned two different subjects, two different reasons. The Second is that I believe that A.D. is fine for this article, especially because it concerns Catholicism.

  That's a Roman Catholic POV. Its analogue would require Vicipaedia to give Mayan calendric dates (and perhaps no BCE or CE dates) in articles dealing with Mayan culture. IacobusAmor 14:25, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

The First is because I don't think his contribution (in opinione Ecclesiae Catholicae) helped.

  That was NOT my contribution yesterday. It had been there for some time. What I added was Romanae to show that the opinion isn't necessarily the opinion of the universal ("catholic") church: it's the opinion of the Roman part of it. It's almost certainly not the opinion of non-Christians. IacobusAmor 14:25, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

For the first sentence might very well be just as biased with his contribution as without it. I say this because it would imply that what is up now is the belief of the Church.

  Whether it is now, or was and no longer is, that's not the most neutral way to start the article. IacobusAmor 14:25, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Something, I as a Catholic, am not certain of. I know that there used to be a phrase Extra Ecclesiam non est Salus, but this is to the best of my knowledge no longer the official Church teaching.

  Then it should be taken out of the text, or kept as a record of an obsolete teaching: either way, it's not part of the general definition of schisma. IacobusAmor 14:25, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

That is not to say that the Church believes that all denominations are created equal, or that anyone can start his own church, for she believes that the seven sacraments infuse grace into the soul, but she does believe that the Protestant churches have a certain amount of truth, and that they even have an imperfect communion with her. She even recognized Orthodox holy orders because the Orthodox church is apostolic (n.B. she does not recognize Protestant, or SPPX orders however).

  You might check to see if Anglican priests who convert to the Roman church can exercise their priestly functions without having to get reordained. Of course, if Protestantness were quantifiable, Anglicans are much less Protestant than, say, Baptists. ;) IacobusAmor 14:25, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Anyways I'll try to correct it. And make it more NPOV. Alexanderr 02:47, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

## [recensere] A.D.

So what's the deal with A.D.? My recollection was that it was generally to be avoided, just as "a.C.n." and "p.C.n." perhaps should be too (but as a practical matter may not be able to be). For dates in the Common Era, a plain, unmodified annum/anno is adequate (and even that can usually be left out); there's no need to bring a sectarian deity into it, no matter what the topic of the article is. IacobusAmor 14:25, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

  Agreed. Wholeheartedly. Again. Still.--Ioshus (disp) 15:45, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree. And strongly. First off this article pertains to Christianity, but secondly I believe that the original author should be able to decide. I wouldn't change a secular dating system to a Christian one, why should it be the other way around? Alexanderr 16:53, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
      To answer your first question, no, not really. No more than you can choose "animales" or "roditores". If we pick a convention here we stick with it. We have chosen not to use Roman numerals for dates; an author may not feel free to use them just because they "were the original author". You fought (pretty strongly I might add) for the use of aCn/pCn. You won. Use it. But in this case, as has been argued across Vicipaedia, we don't usually need aCn/AD/or even "annus".
      To answer your second point is really to affirm Iacobus'. Just because this article pertains to Christianity doesn't mean that we change anything about how we talk about it. His point is an excellent one, if we write an article about Mayan culture, we still use the Julian calendar. When we talk about orthodox russian christmas, we may mention the gregorian date, but the article will be in the Julian calendar. The chinese new year is talked about with the Julian calendar. Starting to make sense?
      To reaffirm Iacobus' third point. I think your religion blinds you to the fact that some people hate writing dates at all simply because every time we write a date we have to be reminded of a deity in whom/which we do not believe. There is no reason to exacerbate this further. If we must, let us use pCn...whethere or not we believe in Jesus, we can at least, with some sort of certainty, admit that he was born around the beginning of the first millenium, and for the sake of consistency call the first year in the Julian calendar 1, and move on with it. This is much less insulting to some of us than writing AD, "in the year of (our) lord".
      A fourth point which you may not realize: This is an encyclopedia, not a Catholopedia. Our conventions are to be consistent, and secular, though our topics may include the religious.--Ioshus (disp) 17:43, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

        Re "I disagree. And strongly." Here's an obvious truth, well expressed by Sir Peter B. Medawar (1915–1987) "The strength of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true." Having memorized it, one thinks of it every time one hears politicians speak about how strongly they believe something (so it must be true): it's evidence of emotion, not reasoning. IacobusAmor 17:53, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
        Re: "I wouldn't change a secular dating system to a Christian one, why should it be the other way around?" Because "the other way round" is the neutral POV. It might be neutral to go the trouble of saying anno domini Christianorum 'in the year of the lord of the Christians' (note the lowercasing), but why bother where annum/anno—or even the unlabeled year-number—suffices? IacobusAmor 17:53, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
        Re: "If we must, let us use pCn...whethere or not we believe in Jesus, we can at least, with some sort of certainty, admit that he was born." Yes, Ioshe, except that what was historically born was a man called Jesus, and asserting that he was the Christ gets us into sectarian usage, albeit usage that was gaining ground around the Mediterranean within a few decades of his execution. IacobusAmor 17:53, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
          True, indeed.--Ioshus (disp) 18:02, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Mayan analogy holds. I think this is much more like the convention on most wikipedias that articles about a certain country or its culture should use the style of language used by that country (e.g. an article about the U.K. would use "centre" while an article about the U.S. would use "center"). And in fact, while A.D. and C.E. constantly undergo revert wars on the English wikipedia, the general consensus seems to be that either should be allowed, and whichever got there first should stay, except in cases where there is a good reason to chose one over the other: articles on Judaism, for instance, normally go with C.E. It doesn't seem unreasonable that Christians should likewise be allowed to use A.D. on their articles. Now, of course, all this pertains to the English wikipedia. As far as the Latin version is concerned, well unfortuantely I don't know of a good, preexisting, non-Christian idiom for anno Domini or anno post Christum natum in Latin. If this really is important to us, we should maybe see what we can find (I'm sure some humanist at some point used a circumlocution that would be inoffensive to Non-Christians.) As for ommitting the formula entirely, I would be fine with that (at least in contexts where it's clear), but I would advise against ommitting the word anno (or whatever form is appropriate in the sentence)--mentioning that the number pertains to a year seems to be much less optional in Latin than it is in English, especially given that one doesn't use in when giving dates in Latin. --Iustinus 17:56, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

  Re: "I think this is much more like the convention on most wikipedias that articles about a certain country or its culture should use the style of language used by that country." The instance of this that most readily comes to mind is that of the "October Revolution" (so named because it began in November), but that's a really really special case. In general (many scholars believe), inconsistencies in encyclopedias are errors. IacobusAmor 18:20, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
    en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English --Iustinus 18:27, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
      Those are mainly matters of spelling. I'm waiting to see the rationalization for maintaining this anno Domini business when the article gets around to incorporating into itself the schisms within Buddhism, some of which predate the schism with which the article currently begins, and of course the main Islamic schism, which began in anno Domini 632. IacobusAmor 18:55, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
        I do not understand why we should use a controversial phrase ("Domini") when there is no need to use it. I think the situation cannot be compared with National varieties of English. When you want to talk about a center or a centre there is a need to use on of these words. But if you can avoid "Domini" at all: Why should we use it, given we do not want to be intentionally provocative? Our intention should not be to transport messages but to provide information. "Domini" does not provide any extra information. However, maybe someone wants to use it because it looks so antique ... like Roman numbers ... ;-) --Rolandus
          Oh, alright, fine, En:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras. I grant that A.D. can be more offensive in Latin because it's easier to consider what it actually means, but I don't want to invent a new idiom for "common era" (keep in mind that I myself am not a Christian, so I am not doing this for Jesus' sake), and neither do I begrudge the Christians their right to use that phrase when writing about themselves (as is typical on the English wikipedia). Iacobus is absolutely right that this will become problematic when other schisms are brought up, though. Alexanderr, perhaps you should concede on this page, and instead use that phrasing when the articles on The Great Schism and The Reformation are written. I don't expect this argument to end, but at least your case will be better there. --Iustinus 19:32, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

## [recensere] Essent

Re: "In opinione Ecclesia Catholica ecclesiae quae abunxerunt ipsas ab ea, Ecclesia Anglicana esse exemplum, non tenent communionem absolutam itaque non omnes sacramenta earum essent valida." Ait Alexanderr: "I'm not sure I'm using "essent" right, however in the second case the full sentence is supposed to read "and therefore not all of their sacraments may be valid"

  1. For starters, sacramenta is neuter plural (vide omnes). What's abunxerunt? IacobusAmor 18:39, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
  2. POV point: after various schisms, the text can just as accurately say "and therefore, to some Protestants, the Roman Catholic rituals are invalid." That the text doesn't (also) say something like that displays a POV. IacobusAmor 18:39, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

    1. Well I thought omnes was neuter plural, however if it's not, it's not. I just thought the C displayed by whitaker's words meant "common" ;-) As for "abunxerunt", it was a typo, I meant "abiunxerunt".
    2. And while your POV point is valid, that is protestants thinking Catholic rituals invalid, it doesn't mean that the article isn't NPOV now. The article states that it is from that Catholic Opinion, and I think the Catholic Opinion should be expressed, especially since the other churches "schismed" off. Alexanderr 00:56, 9 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Receptum de "http://la.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/h/Disputatio%7ESchisma_0e18.html"

##### Views

- Res
- Disputatio
- Emendatio recentissima

##### Quaerere