Major General James G. Blunt

	Ten Commandments in Catholic theology is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 26, 2009.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 21, 2009 Peer review Reviewed March 19, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 21, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 16, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Catholicism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Why is Kreeft quoted so much throughout the article? It does not even mention that he is a renowned Catholic apologist in the first place. The average reader might be wondering who he is and how he figures in the article. Devortex (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's a source.--77.4.46.189 (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor keeps trying to add uncited original research about graven images. Saying the Bible says and just giving the verses doesn't count. You need to provide a secondary reliable source that says it. By policy of WP:BRD you need to take your edits to the talk page before reverting again. Two different editors have issues with your edits so you need to discuss. If you want to add "opposing" viewpoint it needs to be done using a different method.Marauder40 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marauder40, just a reminder that WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It is good practice and I try to follow it myself but editors are not required to do so. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 'marauder', the citations are not original research but observations that date back to the church fathers, the Bishopric of Milan and much before (references on request). Any reader can judge whether the texts I cited as evidence of the superstitious use of the symbols mentioned (the bronze serpent, and the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant) can examine them for whether they immediately justify this simple conclusion (1,2,3,4). As to whether it is proper to reject the Holy Scriptures as a 'reliable source' as has been claimed, I place that between you and your conscience.

1. http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/read/4_Kings_18:4
2. http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/read/Jeremias_7 v. 4,11
3. http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/read/1_Kings_4 v.3-11
4. http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/read/Colossians_2:18

Cpsoper (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cpsoper, you seem to be "relatively" new to Wikipedia since your first edit was back in March 2010 but you have had fewer than 100 edits since then and those to only a few articles. You may wish to consult Wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sources and neutral point of view. The Holy Scriptures are not ideal as a source because they are primary sources and Wikipedia has a strong preference for secondary sources. The reason for this is that any one can selectively choose quotations from a primary source and construct an argument. Such arguments are vulnerable to the charge of being original research and/or synthesis. This is especially true wrt to interpretation of religious scriptures such as the Bible. There are many documented cases where opposing sides in the real world have cited the Bible in support of their argument. What we need are citations to a secondary source (e.g. a Christian theologian) who makes these arguments. It is unlikely that your POV can be presented as incontrovertible truth; however, I suspect that it is one of the significant POVs on this topic so the real issue here is how to find a verifiable secondary source that can be used to support the assertion.

(Now, I'll go and actually read the text in question to see if I can help source it. ;^)

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, P~Richard. Points noted. I also take back my commments about the deletion of the history, which were wrong and inaccurate. However the deductions taken from the texts seem elementary. Cpsoper (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cpsoper, it appears that you have violated the Wikipedia 3RR policy with your reverts today. This qualifies you to be blocked but I won't ask for a block as I don't much care for blocks as they tend to inflame emotions rather than calm them. Besides blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive so I imagine you will stop reverting now that I have alerted you to this policy.

That said, I now have to retract what I said above about sourcing and your point being a significant POV. Now that I have read the text in question, I see that the problem here is not really just one of sourcing. It's really about how relevant the point is to the subtopic of the Catholic doctrine regarding graven images. It is not clear to me whether the point you are making is about graven images, Hebrew worship of graven images or worship of graven images by some Christians, in particular Catholics. If you are trying to make a specific point about Catholic practices relating to graven images, you are not doing it particularly well. It would be appropriate to critique Catholic doctrine and practice relating to graven images but citing passages from the Scriptures is not the way to do it. It would be better to find a secondary source that makes the charge and more importantly attempts to refute the Catholic teaching regarding graven images. The article text already acknowledges that the Catholic Church is criticized for worshiping graven images and provides the Church's teaching defending the practice. The next step is to look for reliable sources that dismiss or refute the Church's teaching. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear P-R, you are correct I am in technical violation, and patience with a clumsy, and obstinate newby is appreciated - I have learned from the experience, not least from the gracious behaviour of other Wikipaedians (I write solemnly without irony). It does seem to me that this article however has become little more than a showcase of Roman Catholic doctrine without any dialectic. That itself does not appear to be a neutral POV nor does it seem, in my limited experience of wiki, to comport with its philosophy. In this it's radically different from many other pages. The purpose of the edit is to point out the general historical point that iconolatry (latria) is a frequent sequence to revering (doulia) sacred symbols, this has been a widespread and proper concern both within (though more in earlier generations) and outside the Roman fold. I respectfully but fundamentally disagree that the use of scripture is an inappropriate means of addressing this, especially in a section that professes to explicate Christianity. To claim a distinction between a primary and secondary source like this is artifical - what authority does a modern scholar or writer possess that scripture does not, even when viewed as a naked historical narrative of recurring apostasy? To claim that different interpretations prevent the use of the scripture is academically weak, as well as being an unscriptural and therefore unChristian position (Isa 8:20). I am not claiming it is necessary to be Christian to comment on Christiainity, but neither should it be prerequisite not to behave like one. Do scholars not sharply disagree over secondary sources and their interpretation any less than theologians over Bible passages? Are not modern scholars and peer-reviewed publications occasionally guilty of error? In short, just because Satan quotes scripture does that mean that Christ was wrong to refute him by citing an appropriate response? The reader must exercise judgement. If that judgement is applied to the texts I cited, the case is open and shut. I won't reedit the page, but I fear you have already lost much more than gained, and not on my account. Best wishes. Cpsoper (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the need for secondary sources. The Bible can be used when providing a quote, but it cannot used for interpretting the quote because various denominations interprete the quotes differently. You need a secondary source to provide your interpretation. An excellent example is your use of the quote about the destruction of the serpent. You seem to be saying that the serpent was destroyed because it is a graven image. The Catholic church would say that the serpent was destroyed not because it was an image but because it was being worshipped as a God. You need to learn to work within concensus. There are numerous polices that discuss this, please read them most of them are linked within the Five Pillars article. As Pseudo-Richard pointed out Bold, Revert, Discuss isn't necessarily a policy in and of itself but contains many policies within it and is especially useful in discussing contraversial topics. Just remember, this article is a featured article. That means it has been through peer review and FAC to make it so. That doesn't mean it can't be changed, cleaned up, expanded upon, etc., but care must be taken when doing so and any problems should be discussed on the talk page, not through edit war.Marauder40 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on Marauder40's point, it would be acceptable, even required under policy, to present multiple Points of View (POVs). Thus, it would be acceptable to say "Reliable Source A uses scripture P to support assertion X" whereas "Reliable Source B uses scripture Q to deny assertion X". What is not acceptable to say is that "Random Wikipedian C uses scripture R to support assertion Y". The reader has no reason to trust that Wikipedian C's interpretation of the scripture has any respectability whatsoever. And, yes, I am aware that many Protestant denominations have individual interpretation of scriptures as a core tenet of their faith. Nonetheless, presentation of such is not acceptable according to Wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sources. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell is there a picture of some random buff dude running through water and with the caption talking about leading a healthy lifestyle and not taking drugs or smoking? This kind of nonsensical picture choice really saps the impression the article makes, especially as a featured article. I'm not even sure the caption deserves a picture box at all. But certainly not just some beefcake. It looks like someone either put it in as a joke, or as some sort of sublimated fantasy. No good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.254.214 (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed it. Jesanj (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is misleading. The Ten Commandments refers to a particular grouping of commandments, if not to a specific text. While commandments exist in Islam, and while one can find roughly corresponding commandments in Islam (and other religions) for each of the 10 Judeo-Christian commandments individually, neither the biblical text nor a corresponding grouping can be found in Islam. Zargulon (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat confused by the status of the commandment to honour the sabbath, and I'm not sure the section makes it entirely clear. Is the Catholic teaching that the sabbath has been completely moved from Saturday to Sunday (and if so, what is the reasoning behind that, given that Sunday is generally regarded as the first day of the week not the seventh)?

Or is it more that Catholics are no longer required to observe the sabbath (i.e. Saturday), but are told instead to make Sunday the rest day. If this is the case, how does that square with the Commandment to honour the sabbath?

Some further clarification on this point would be useful I think. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Honour the Sabbath" is called honouring the Sabbath because this is the way it is written down in the Pentateuch.

However, the Catholic Church has always upheld that while honoring the Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments (and thus, part of moral law), the precisation to the Seventh Day is part of the ceremonial law and has been changed by universal Church practice to the Sunday. In the Old Covenant one rested in God in awaiting the Sabbath Rest to come; in the New Covenant we celebrate the day the same Sabbath Rest began in reality. (All Christian life is a spiritual Sabbath.) (And I meant Universal Church Practice. Just because some conventicula have it differently does not change that.)

In reflection of this, catechists sometimes give the commandment as "honour the holiday", and English-speakers (mostly of Protestant origin, but nevertheless there's nothing condemnable in this) sometimes refer to the Sunday as The Sabbath. Nevertheless, English speakers are alone with the latter thing, and Italians have no problem with the day of rest being on Domenica and not on Sabbato, while in the meantime giving the accurate Biblical words of the commandment as "Remember the Sabbath". We do not follow the strict Jewish ritual for the Sabbath either, after all, not even for the Sunday.

Was that useful? Sorry for not giving accurate citations (which could be done), but I'm quite sure I'm right here...--93.135.104.231 (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from History section:

"The coming of Jesus is seen by the Catholic Church as the fulfillment of the destiny of the Jews, ..."

In my opinion, choosing of the word "destiny" is not good. I intend to propose rewording such as:

"The coming of Jesus is seen by the Catholic Church as the fulfillment of the God's covenant to the Jews, ..."

Thank you, Ign christian (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which covenant? God made five in the Old Testament. Elizium23 (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Em..I think what I meant was the "hope" of the coming of Messiah as explained in CCC 436-440. Ign christian (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the last couple of weeks, Ign christian has made substantive changes to this article, in many cases altering or even reversing the meaning of cited passages. We need to ensure the cited sources still support these changes. Does anyone have access to the sources used in this article to verify? Otherwise, we may have to consider demotion from Featured article status at WP:FAR. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Would you please mention in which sections the sources is inaccessible? I'll try my best to replace those with accessible sources. With regards, Ign christian (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh..I remember now, links to the CCC from Vatican site is broken. I'll replace those asap. Ign christian (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sourced to many books I don't have access to, and that's OK. I'm not asking that the sources be changed. What I'm saying that if you change the meaning of a statement, you have to verify that the cited source supports your statement. Otherwise, the citation is invalid and in violation of WP:V. --Laser brain (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the mistakes. The broken links had been replaced. Please inform me if any changes I made still can't be verified. Many thanks, Ign christian (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the edits look fine to me. The bit about St. Ambrose was seriously wrong; thanks for the correction there. I'm quite curious about the passage "According to the Church, humans are sexual beings whose sexual identity should be accepted in the unity of body and soul." that was changed, is it supported by the Kreeft source or what? Elizium23 (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: you're welcome. Actually the statement is based on the CCC. Thanks for pointed out that thing, I'll make some adjustment. Ign christian (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reread I'm not really sure about the wording, the statement combines CCC 2332 & 2333. Previously I made the edit to avoid the usage of tripartite structure (body, mind, soul) since official teachings never use such structure. Please reword the statement I you find something strange. Ign christian (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ten Commandments in 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/20090211200859/http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_10973.php to http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_10973.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pope St. John Paul the Great's teaching on adultery is good doctrine, mainstream teaching, and not merely "his own personal thoughts" and there is no basis or reason for removing this sourced, verifiable material from the article. Elizium23 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]