Talk:Church

Balance?
This doesn't give a balanced view of "the Church." If anything "the Church" more often means the whole of Christianity or the whole of the Roman Catholic Church. I don't know Protestantism or Orthodoxy but it would not surprise me to learn "the Church" means something similar in Protestantism and Orthodoxy.
 * Balance is not in itself significant at Wiktionary. The main questions are the attestable use of the term in a given meaning, whether it is used (or not used) in a way that is an automatic consequence from its grammatical, and the relative frequency of use is its various senses.
 * We need to cover usage as a general term that applies to other denominations. There's nothing wrong with the current sense, but it shouldn't be the only one.
 * Also, as I understand it (I'm not Catholic) "The Church" has a very specific meaning and usage in Catholic theology, and merits its own sense, though there is similar, but less explicit, usage outside of Catholicism. In Catholic usage, it has something to do with it being a divinely-established entity which is merely manifested in the worldly religious institution. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of this term to refer to any organization with Church in one of its names is not unlike using someone's first name, last name or nickname to refer to him or her. It is almost an automatic consequence of its role as the head of the proper names of various church organizations. It would be mildly interesting to know if there were any exceptions to that practice. It would also be somewhat tedious to attempt to document which of the various churches were referred to (or not) in this way. DCDuring TALK 19:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we treat "Church" not as a proper name, but rather as a noun? This is why the article is necessary. The capital letter is here to distinguish it from the building. An equivalent is "the State". Adjectives are not necessaries as far as the context makes the meaning clear. But their is much true in Chuck's statement. In the Catholic Church, according to an official declaration of the Catholic Congregation for the doctrine of the faith, lead by then cardinal Ratzinger (now pope Benedict XVI), there is only one Church and non Catholic Christians are part of it to a lesser degree. The word "Church" should be used only for communities with genuine apostolic succession. This rule is followed by some Catholics (including me). So, for instance, we would speak of an "Orthodox Church", "the Coptic Church" but not of "the Adventist Church" nor of a "Lutheran Church", except inside proper names, as for "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "the Reformed Church of France". So there are 3 meanings of the term in the Catholic Church:
 * "the Church" = "one holy catholic and apostolic Church". This acceptation follows the general meaning (or, rather, the general meaning follows it, because the Catholic Church is older than the word "Church" itself and than English language): "The whole only community fully faithful to Jesus Christ.". This meaning is followed by quite many Protestant communities who also consider themselves as the only real Church (Adventists, Baptists, many Lutherans etc.), but the "Catholic" acceptation may be treated as a sub-case of this, because it is the historical acceptation, and the other usages of the Church with a global meaning derive from it.
 * The meaning noted in the unsigned statement above: "'the Church' more often means the whole of Christianity". In fact, this acceptation seems rare, and I don't know if it exists outside the Catholic Church. It implies that, though the Church of Christ is divided, the divisions are not such that the unity doesn't exist any more.
 * a "particular Church", i.e. a "community lead by one or several bishops who are historically and theologically truly successors of Jesus' apostles", even if their community is not Catholic any more. This acceptation of the term may be proper to the the Catholic Church (though I guess many Orthodoxes mainly agree with this idea), but its signified is wider than the Catholic Church itself. Examples: "the Coptic Church", "the Russian Orthodox Church", "the Church of France" (= the Catholic Church in France), "the Church of Hiroshima".
 * And there is a fourth meaning, that cardinal Ratzinger calls improper and should better, according to him, be replaced by "ecclesial community":
 * (any) "Christian community".
 * The exact statement of the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith is in Dominus Iesus, no. 16 and 17:
 * "The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [ subsistit in ] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57
 * 17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
 * On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62"
 * --Henri de Solages (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62"
 * --Henri de Solages (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

RFD discussion: October 2019–October 2020
"(used with the) A specific church (Christian religious denomination), such as the Church of England or the Catholic Church." This is just a normal capitalisation rule in proper nouns: we do not have comparable entries at (Bank of England, Bank of America),  (the Michelin Man) or  (Aral Sea). If this sense isn't already at lower-case then we could of course move it there, noting "often capitalised" if we must. Equinox ◑ 09:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is capitalized as expected when used as part of a proper noun, just like and, so there is no need for a special note.  --Lambiam 22:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete for nominator’s reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this sense, Oxford has an entry for Church Army which is more specific. DonnanZ (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * But Church Army is an entire proper noun and cannot be written lower-cased. The logic does not apply here. This case is more like having capital City or capital Tower because of New York City, Eiffel Tower. Equinox ◑ 13:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or move to . There have been many times where I've heard "the Church" used by non-Catholics to refer to the Catholic Church in places where one would expect further specification if it was merely SOP. If you saw a headline that said something like “President Joe Blow Criticizes the Church's Stance on Abortion,” would you be confused, or would you understand a specific church? (Although I don't exclude the possibility that my interpretation of the way I've seen it used is somewhat warped due to my own bias.) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Moving it to "the Church" is IMO even worse. We don't usually put the on entries (cf. Eiffel Tower). We can always use en-noun to display the word "the" inside the entry: it needn't be in the page title. Equinox ◑ 13:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but if we do keep we need separate senses for each organisation. There are cases where "the Church" is used without enough context to tell you which organisation it is but the fact the term used is "the Church" together with the limited context provided is enough for you to know. I think that is distinguishable from, for example "the Committee" where the full name of the Committee is used earlier in the text. John Cross (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah. It would be a shame to lose the quotations that someone took the trouble to enter. I could go along with both Andrew Sheedy and John Cross, Equinox is also flexible, or have  (or similar) instead. DonnanZ (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to keep this one. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Move/merge to church, with label noting capitalisation and article. However, for me, the present definition somewhat misses the main point of "the Church" as a separate sense. The fact that "the Church" can be used to mean some specific church, such as "the Church of England", does not in itself seem very entry-worthy. It seems more an ordinary feature of English that can apply to arbitrary cases. As Equinox points out, we may as well have an entry for "(the) Sea" on the basis that this could be used to refer to a specific sea. In the case of "the Church", yes, a specific church is meant, but the point of the separate sense is more that "the Church" has extra connotations, e.g. that it is recognised or understood as the main or established institution within the context. Mihia (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Abstain. It could be reworked, I think that it is more commonly used of the Catholic Church than of other churches anyway as noted by Andrew Sheedy, but more importantly there is no sense "mainstream (non-Arian, non-Unitarian) Christianity". Perhaps if this fails it could be resolved to include that here. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The most commonly intended church is probably region- or community-specific. In some places it may be the Catholic Church. In an English context, with no other information, "the Church" is probably understood as CofE. Mihia (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. These uses are exactly analogous to the uses of capitalized Association, Brotherhood, and so on, as short forms of the proper noun denoting some institution in a context in which it is understood which institution is referenced. A few examples: “Prior to each annual meeting the Association shall elect the Officers as provided for in Article 3”; “The aim of the Association is to support and strengthen comparative literature studies”; “The Association may maintain affiliation with other societies if the Governing Board determines that the affiliation would further the purposes of the Association”; “The objector shall keep the Brotherhood informed of any change in address”; “The Brotherhood is controlled in each domination by a council elected by its members”; “The salary of the G E.B. when employed by the Brotherhood shall be $3.00 per day and $2.50 per day for expenses, exclusive of railroad fare.” All refer to completely different associations and brotherhoods, such as the Washington City/County Management Association and the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America; the terms have no intrinsic meaning. --Lambiam 09:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference, as I see it, is that someone may refer to "the Church" with no prior context or information, and expect that it will be understood. This is not likely with "Association" or "Brotherhood". "the Church" seems to be a "thing" that exists other than merely as a shortened form of "the Church of X" used to reduce repetition or wordage, unlike these other examples that have been given. Mihia (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is my duty to inform you that the Church finds your attitude problematic. You cannot say you have not been warned. How can the recipient of a message be supposed to understand what “the Church” refers to with no prior context or information ? That does not make sense. In the two example quotations the first is from a Catechism of the Catholic Church, so there it is obvious from the context that this is not the . In the second, the reference to Salt Lake Valley gives away that this is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; also without that hint, the audience to the speech by of which this was a fragment were attendees of a worldwide priesthood gathering of the LDS Church, so the Brethren understood the speaker was not referring to the . Show me an example of use of “the Church” without any context in which there is a reasonable expectation that the audience will understand which Church this refers to.  --Lambiam 20:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * An example would be “Mindful of the Church’s teaching that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have resolved to put these considerations before any others.” No specific "Church of X" has been mentioned. It is just assumed that the reader will understand "the Church" as an institution. It is hard to think of a case where e.g. "the Association" would be mentioned out of the blue with no reference to which association is meant. Mihia (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Without context I could not know which church this referred to, but upon finding out the statement was issued by the sister of the (and daughter of its previous Supreme Governor), one tends to develop a hunch as to which church may have been referenced here.  --Lambiam 21:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not really important whether the reader/listener actually knows which specific church is meant. The important thing is that "the Church" is used and understood to mean the relevant established religious institution/authority, without further explanation. This is what makes it different from e.g. "the Association". Mihia (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Put that way, that's exactly the same as the X, for any X. "The College", "the University", "the State", "the Department" often goes without explanation, and I suspect in certain circles "the Association" is used the same way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. "the Church" is expected to have a broader and wider understanding, with no further explanation, than any of those other things, except "the State", in my opinion. I think there is a qualitative difference. "the State" is similar to "the Church". Mihia (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think part of this distinctive use of "the Church" might have to do with the fact that members of a given church will typically see their church as the one true church, not simply a church among many. Given the predominance of the Catholic Church globally and certain other churches locally, this usage among members of the church in question could easily have bled over into usage by people outside of that church. This reminds me of phrases like "the Faith", used by Christians to refer to the Christian (and often specifically the Catholic) faith. The same does not hold for "the Association", "the Committee", etc. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As a Catholic who cares very much about his faith, I would agree with that analysis. I certainly think of the Church in the way that you describe in your first sentence there. It's funny that you bring this up, by the way, as many early Christians called the faith "the Way". "Christian" appears to have been either originally intended as a pejorative of some sort, or was otherwise an exonym of some sort. In any case, I suppose that we reclaimed the word fairly swiftly. Tharthan (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Having a strong Christian belief doesn't make "church" and "Church" separate words. Equinox ◑ 00:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say "I am a Catholic, thus 'church' and 'Church' are objectively distinct". I was expressing concurrence with Mr. Sheedy's analysis, and noting that it is Catholic belief (and, as a Catholic, I hold the belief) that the Church is the subsistence of what was founded by Christ and initially headed by the apostles. And, furthermore, the usage of "the Church" for "the Catholic Church" is very typical in my experience, even when speaking to non-Catholics. So, again, I was concurring with (and giving personal witness to the veracity of) Mr. Sheedy's analysis.
 * Do keep in mind that I haven't voted either way on this RfD. I personally don't care whether we mark them as distinct or not. I can see justification for both positions, and I really think that this matter is more related to preference than anything else. I don't think that Wiktionary users would be missing out either way, because (taking as a given that those using this dictionary understand the concept of proper nouns) I cannot really reckon how someone would not be able to discern the meaning of "the Church" in a scenario (that "the Church" means what our current definition for it in the challenged entry describes). If it is contained within an article, the article would probably contain enough information for a reader to read between the lines. If there is not enough information for a person to figure out what "the Church" is referring to in the article (or what have you), I highly doubt that our entry would do much with regard to clearing things up. Tharthan (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If you flip the case of a word (dog, DOG, Dog, dOG) is it really a different word? Hopefully not. If a noun is very important because of cultural reasons (the Church...)... I know we're not supposed to argue from imaginary hellscapes that haven't happened yet, but it seems so dumb. It makes me think of how Christians refer to God, with a capital H-"He". So: He, Him, His. Should we have separate entries for those? Probably not, bc they mean the exact same thing as he, him, his, and the purpose of the capital H is respect to God (like how Muslims say that special little mantra "peace be upon him"), it's not grammatical. Equinox ◑ 02:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just pointing this out, but we have an entry for He, as well as an entry for peace be upon him. Tharthan (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 1. whataboutism. 2. Maybe I'll come for "He" later! (foot-in-the-door technique). I hope we won't keep this entry purely because "there are other similar entries" lol. Equinox ◑ 21:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to mis-extrapolate my intentions. I have already told you that I don't care how this RfD goes. I was simply mentioning that, because I recalled that we had an entry for He. Tharthan (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - TheDaveRoss  12:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per Lambiam and per nom. I notice we also have a sense like this at "Court", which I would also delete (at the very least, the (US) label must be wrong, no?). - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment — Reviving this just to note that I added an extra sense at church, "Organized religion in general or a specific religion considered as a political institution", to cover cases where the term doesn't refer to a specific formal institution (the most obvious example being phrases to do with "separation of church and state"). This sense is often capitalised and is distinct from the standard proper noun usage that Lambiam noted, which might explain a little of the confusion above. —Nizolan (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems best handled by a usage note. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No consensus after a year of discussion. bd2412 T 02:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)