Talk:Apostolic see

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Apostolic See)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Would it not be helpful to include all of the sees legendarily founded by apostles? I'm particularly thinking of the community of Saint Thomas Christians said to have been founded by Thomas the Twin in 64 CE. Presumably, similar legends are attributed to most of the other apostles in various places as well? QuartierLatin1968 21:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Twelve apostles dab[edit]

Regarding the latest edit * Jerusalem, in present-day Israel, or Palestine, from the twelve apostles themselves as the original Church and also a successor of the Apostle Saint James - I have changed the apostles to apostles to point to Twelve_Apostles article. --Biblbroks's talk 18:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegiance to Rome or Constantinople[edit]

What does this phrase: "The sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem are traditionally divided in their allegiance to either Rome or Constantinople, but the modern movement of ecumenism seeks to heal these church-dividing wounds." mean? I wasn't aware of those three sees owing allegiance to Rome. Is that a reference to the Eastern Catholic Churches? If this is the case, shouldn't we also make reference to the Oriental Orthodox, who claim these three sees as well (the Copts with Alexandria, the Syrians with Antioch, and the Armenians with Jerusalem)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusveritasest (talkcontribs) 04:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If ADM wants it back in, he should clarify and source it. Lima (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Other sees[edit]

Also, it seems that there is a certain shortage of references to sees which claim Apostolic origin. This article is seemingly limited to the Pentarchy, yet there are many more sees to be listed beyond these five. Should not this article be broadened as such? Deusveritasest (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Some are mentioned. You may add more. I have endeavoured to draw more attention to non-patriarchal ones by putting those classified as the Pentarchy in a separate paragraph and slightly simplifying their description. Lima (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Saint Thomas created a church in Kerala, India. Would this qualify as an apostolic see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.57.199 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Terrae Sanctae"[edit]

What is the point of referring to the Holy Land in Latin in this article? Deusveritasest (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unjustified and, moreover, ungrammatical. Lima (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we move this to Apostolic see?[edit]

I believe that, as with episcopal sees, one doesn't use initial caps when writing about apostolic sees, unless one is referring to the Apostolic See, that is, the Holy See. So can we move this to Apostolic see, which currently redirects here? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Lima (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds sensible. Q·L·1968 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"POV pusher"[edit]

Notpietru, please explain why you classify as POV pushing an indication that calling Rome the Apostolic See (an expression that suggests no other see can be given that name) is an RCC usage. Do you mean that everyone, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants included, follow the same usage?

Your reversal to "According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, 'The Apostolic See' is used ..." (emphasis added) has made me wonder whether it is logical to quote a 1907 publication for what is used, rather than for what was used over a century ago. Esoglou (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, an updated ref would be nice, but that's still the stance of the RCC today, that they are the only valid "THE APOSTOLIC SEE". Naturally the other "Apostolic Sees" disagree with that claim. And the "Non-Apostolic Sees" couldn't care less. 75.15.199.160 (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
This unsigned editor thus agrees that the usage under discussion is (today too) a specifically RCC usage. Mentioning it was not POV pushing. Suppressing the mention perhaps was. Esoglou (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
You're aware that using socks runs counter to Wiki policy? Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
PS. It may help to read the English a little more carefully: the claim is qualified in light of an Encyclopedic entry which you are trying to delete. The point of these articles is the faithful collation of standard scholarly material, or irregular work carefully qualified. Problems with this method are problems with Wikipedia, and should an editor wish to dispute them, the Apostolic see talk page is hardly a suitable place to do so. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Notpietru, please be civil. After calling me a "POV pusher", are you now accusing me of using a sock puppet? I will be delighted if you get someone to check whether the still anonymous new editor is even from the same country I am from! But for the rule about assuming good faith, I might wonder about your motives in reversing all the changes that editor made in this article.
I don't get what you mean by recommending to read the English more carefully. What encyclopedic entry did I try to delete? I kept the reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia article: just look at footnote 14 of the article as revised by me, the form that you reverted on the grounds not merely of calling it "POV pushing", but more offensively, by calling me a "POV pusher"! What you deleted was the statement that it is RCC usage to call the see of Rome simply "the Apostolic See". Undeniably it is RCC usage, as the Catholic Encyclopedia citation shows. Do you want some further citations of that RCC usage in papal documents and the like? There are dozens, indeed hundreds of them, more likely thousands of them. I refrained from inserting a statement that this usage is not EOC usage, because I wanted to be less controversial. (You are now forcing me to become controversial.) It is not difficult to produce citations that show that in Eastern usage the see of Rome (which is, of course, called the Apostolic See of Rome, as the see of Antioch is called the Apostolic See of Antioch) is not called simply the Apostolic See. Take Bishop Kallistos Ware's book on the Orthodox Church. Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Excellent current edit. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Map[edit]

Can someone please upload this map? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TheApostolicSees.png

It fits this page perfectly. Thanks. --Daniel the duck (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for additional citations[edit]

A request for additional citations has been placed in the article. It would be helpful to have an indication of the items in it that are felt to require additional citations. Esoglou (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have added a few additional citations and have removed the tag until the editor who placed indicates what she or he wants. Esoglou (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)