Talk:Churches Militant, Penitent, and Triumphant

Do any Protestant denominations believe in purgatory?

I have edited the following quote: "In systems of theology which reject the doctrine of Purgatory, such as Lutheranism,[3] and most other Protestant denominations, the Churches Militant and Triumphant are together known as the two states of the Church." I've done this because I'm not aware of any Protestant denomination that holds to the doctrine of Purgatory. Even those claiming that some Protestants do believe it don't give any examples of denominations believing it (or even churches). And others give examples of High Anglicans or High Lutherans. But again, these are not denominations. So anyway, I've changed it. If you know of a Protestant denomination that formally holds to this doctrine, I'm happy to be corrected. Tojasonharris (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Dictionary entry?

This article seems to be just defining a term which in part or in total describes the "Christian Church". Any reason not to just consider this a "dictionary entry" (i.e. inappropriate) and merge it into Christian Church (or some other article)? I agree that there is a significance to the term in Christianity but it's not clear why the term has an article (i.e. it is not clear that the "thing" it describes is different in some important way from the "thing" described elsewhere). --Mcorazao 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I vote keep it, maybe flesh it out a bit more, but you come across the terms a lot in old books and I found this helpful. Most people think of a Church as a building or something, and this clarifies otherwise. (71.221.189.99 01:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC))

A good article on its own

Only the more voluminous dictionaries would have entries for these terms and generally not together. This article discusses the relationship between the two phrases, provides background information and clarifies a concept that would be confusing to the modern observer. This is precisely what people come to wikipedia for. If it got merged into the text of a larger article, there runs the risk of it being edited out to improve the quality of the other article. I'm not swayed by the reasons presented that it should be deleted or merged. I arrived here looking for precisely the information contained in the article. It's a pretty good article, IMHO. 70.51.52.159 04:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Church militant

This article restricts the terms of Church division to the RC church. However, this language is also used elsewhere. For example, the 1552 BCP (Church of England) (but not the earlier, more tolerant-of-Catholic 1549) refers to "Church militant" after the poor-offering (to make the distinction between the living members (who are then prayed for) and the rest (who are not, and cannot, be prayed for) ). Also, there is no discussion of the usage history of these terms (the reason of my searching for this article). Tobermory (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

the twinkling of an eye

The article characterizes Protestants as believing that purification is completed in a "twinkling of an eye", referring to 1 Cor 15:52, but this verse is referring to the resurrection of the body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.242.120 (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Name

I think this article should be moved to Church Universal. That is the first bold name used in the article. — Reinyday, 17:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a redirect to this article, which I think has an awful title, but good content. (I added the link to Reinyday's comment) Huw Powell (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ordering of Terms

I recommend the order of the three divisions be changed to reflect the natural progression through time: 1. Church Militant 2. Church Suffering 3. Church Triumphant Atticusfinch80 (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad links

Two of the image links are dead links Kenfree (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Church militant and church triumphant. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070927003601/http://biblia.com/images/purgatory-mass.gif to http://biblia.com/images/purgatory-mass.gif

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 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: Not moved as consensus to keep the article at it's current name has been established. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 ^talk 18:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Church militant and church triumphant → Three states of the church – Current title omits the Church Penitent (contrary to WP:PRECISE), and adding it to the title would be too cumbersome (cf. WP:CONCISE). This name is both WP:PRECISE, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENT with Four Marks of the Church. Current title is also inconsistent with content in its lack of capitalization. Furthermore, this title does not satisfy WP:AND:

• Where possible, use a title covering all cases: for example, Endianness covers the concepts "big-endian" and "little-endian".
  • The current title only covers 2 of 3 cases, excluding the Church Penitent.
• Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased.
  • As one voting editor has admitted, the current title is biased towards the exclusion of Catholic doctrine, despite its nontriviality within the theology of a major Christian denomination (the largest, in fact, and the 2nd-largest world faith overall).

Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 07:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC), amended (1st time, capitalization) 16:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC), amended (2nd time, WP:AND argument) 07:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Weak support; recommend amendment to "Three states of the church" per title guidelines. --Zfish118^⋉talk 16:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Question: In your opinion, should Four Marks of the Church also be un-capitalized similarly on the same grounds? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 16:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Four Marks of the Church, is arguably a proper noun phrase, and see no need to change that title. Given that the current article treats church militant and triumphant as common nouns, any target title should follow suit. --Zfish118^⋉talk 02:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree on 4 Marks. Note, though, that this article capitalizes "Church Militant/Penitent/Triumphant" in all instances except in quotations and, for some reason, in the section on Lutheranism (which is simply in need of a style correction IMO). (Just realized those uses in the Lutheranism section were all in a series of long quotations; still could perhaps use a style edit to integrate the quotes better.) Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 08:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC), edited 08:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I understand User:Jujutsuan's request. However, the state of the Church Penitent is a concept unique to Catholicism and is not found in other Christian Churches that are discussed in this article (Anglican, Methodist, Adventist, etc.). All of the denominations discussed here, however, accept at least two states: the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant. Therefore, I think that this article should retain its current title. I agree that we can consider correcting the capitalization issues here, possibly moving the article to "Church Militant and Church Triumphant". I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course you're free to keep your vote as is, but I beg to differ on your claim. It is not unique to the Catholic Church. From the Purgatory article (note that "Church Penitent" and "Purgatory" are virtually identical):

The notion of Purgatory is associated particularly with the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (in the Eastern sui juris churches or rites it is a doctrine, though it is not often called "Purgatory", but the "final purification" or the "final theosis"); Anglicans of the Anglo-Catholic tradition generally also hold to the belief, along with many Lutherans of High Church Lutheranism. Eastern Orthodox Churches believe in the possibility of a change of situation for the souls of the dead through the prayers of the living and the offering of the Divine Liturgy, and many Orthodox, especially among ascetics, hope and pray for a general apocatastasis.

That's three of the churches in the article at present, plus another (EOC) that should be added. If they're not all mentioned yet, that means there needs to be some expansion of the article, not the omission of 1/3 of the proper title. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 08:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose per COMMONNAME. While inclusion of Church Penitent is precise, it's generally never addressed. Most sources discuss Church Militant and Church Triumphant. I also don't want to open the can of worms about capitalization of Church and this RM provokes that question. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind listing some of the sources you're referring to? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 08:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Question. Is the term "Three States of the Church" commonly used, and can you provide citations of its use by several reliable sources? Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's rather archaic, which is less than ideal, but it's real, and used in the 1992 Catholic Catechism as the default name of the concept. "Church Militant, Church Penitent, and Church Triumphant" is way too long to be a substitute. And it would not be at all NPOV to omit Church Penitent from the title; it needs to either be listed outright, or lumped into the collective term "three states". Hope that helps. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 04:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Instead, rename to Church militant, church penitent and church triumphant. The original title of the article was overly influenced by the source focused on the first and third. "Three States of the Church" is too imprecise & unrecognizable for a general audience, easily confused with something to do with Trinity I immediately think. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2016 (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.

I disagree that the closer's closing summary is reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Moving against consensus

@Jujutsuan: Shame on you. You ask for consensus, are rebuffed, and then move the page anyway? Chris Troutman (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The RM wasn't about the target title—notice I didn't move it to "Three states of the church"?? One voting user had made suggestions similar to the target, so I BOLDed it. Want to revert it? Go ahead. Kind of confused why you haven't availed yourself of that yet—it was the point of calling it a bold move. Sheesh. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 18:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Also: you ignore a reasonable request for sources to back up your extraordinary claim that Purgatory is "never addressed", and then you have the gall show up again in time to "shame on you" me? Really? That's shameful if I've ever seen it. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 18:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no onus on me to provide facts to back up my assertions. I can make my !vote however I please. My issue is that the discussion closed with no consensus to move and you moved it anyway, pretty much expressing contempt for both the aggregate and Wikipedia policy. I don't see a point in introducing you to WP:BRD as you've shown that you disregard discussion, anyway. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion did not substantially address the target title. There was "no consensus" on the nominated title. One editor named something similar to the target as a suggestion; it was never "discussed". I BOLD-took that suggestion. "Showing contempt" would have been proceeding with the nominated move even though it clearly failed. I didn't do that; I moved it to the alternate suggestion and, by citing BOLD in my move edit summary, opened the door wide open to it being reverted in good faith. If you feel so strongly, just do it already. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 23:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

And you're right, you can make your vote however you wish. But since WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:VOTE, no one (including little old me) has to take you seriously unless you back up your vote with a reason, and sources when your claim is as extraordinary as it was. (Purgatory is never addressed? Really? Really??) And frankly, not responding to a request for some sources, but then coming back to criticize, is just plain rude if nothing else. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 23:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Name discussion

As I've explained in the section above, I WP:BOLD moved this page to Church Militant, Church Penitent, and Church Triumphant, not against consensus, but without seeking it beforehand. I'm about to BOLD move it again to a more WP:CONCISE version: "Churches Militant, Penitent, and Triumphant". Now, since these are BOLD moves, anyone may revert them and begin discussion, all without anyone's feelings getting hurt or bureaucratic machines of punishment being initiated. If such discussion needs to happen, please do it here. Should the new title stay, or should it be changed to something else? Keep in mind that it would be incredibly un-NPOV to omit reference to Church Penitent from the title, since it's both in the article and not, as some have fantastically alleged, unique to the Catholic Church (see the old RM for Three states of the church for my reasoning on that; sources to contradict me have yet to be provided). Happy editing, everyone. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment. The new name of the article is fine. It's to the point. Majoreditor (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Support the current Churches Militant, Penitent, and Triumphant title. I think it is good, decidedly better than my 12:52, 19 June 2016 suggestion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose This is beginning to annoy me. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So are you just annoyed that WP:BOLD is a thing, or do you have a substantive complaint about the name? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 09:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)r

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Churches Militant, Penitent, and Triumphant. 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/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

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) 07:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Orthodox perspective.

The article is completely missing a section on the Orthodox perspective on this teaching. This should be corrected.

130.45.24.168 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)