Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Primacy of the Roman Pontiff)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Mid-importance).
 


POV[edit]

The editor who marked this article as POV on 5 October did not explain why he did it. Perhaps the marking is justified because of the disproportionate length of the section on "Orthodox Christian (sic) arguments against papal supremacy", more than twice as long as the rest of the article. Is there any other possible reason for marking the article as POV? The article has another section on "Opposition to the doctrine", a mere 3.86% of the whole article but a whole 11.59% of the non-OCAAPS part, and the rest is a historical account of the growth of the Bishop of Rome's exercise of power and the challenges raised against it. There is no section on arguments for the doctrine. Esoglou (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou: Arguments 'for' are given in the first section, showing 'development' and use of Irenaus, Ignatius, et al. You may have missed it in concentrating on percentages and other segements

Out of curiosity when you quote "Orthodox Christian (sic) arguments against papal supremacy" I can't find that quote, nor whether you've inserted (sic) which would be incorrect or whether that's in the original quote - where ever you found it Montalban (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that you are unfamiliar with the use of " [sic]" in a quotation. I take it that you do not question that your "Orthodox Christian [sic] arguments against papal supremacy" at this point take up a little more than two thirds of the article. Esoglou (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Esolgou, people use (sic) in a quote only when there's an error in the quote, such as spelling, and the person quoting that is acknowledging the error. So, for instance if you wrote "Rome is a grate city" and I were to quote you what you said I would write as part of the quote exactly what you wrote thus : "Rome is a grate (sic) city" because I'm quoting you and I add (sic) noting the error in spelling.

I asked you who wrote "Orthodox Christian (sic) arguments..." I don't recall doing so.

I have no idea who you're quoting. Is it me, someone else, who? It's a very simple question

Montalban (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if you have no idea who wrote this, whoever did write it used more than two thirds of the article to present that one POV. This talk section is about that undenied disproportion. It is best not to devote it instead to questions of curiosity . The article, as it stands, is clearly a POV article. Esoglou (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Two things,

a) this reply of yours has nothing to do with you adding (sic) into a text for as yet no apparent reason. I can only gather you don't know what (sic) is used for.

b) not only was I invited to present an Orthodox view-point, the POV as you call it is one of your selective rules, missing that the first part of the article is arguably one giving the view of the Catholic church - re: the development of primacy based on alleged evidences. It is simply another in a plethora of charges that you have laid without doing so to the whole article, or only to certain editors. Montalban (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You may have forgotten your ignoring the Oriental Orthodox, but please don't forget that the complaint here is not about the presentation of an Eastern Orthodox view but about devoting more than two thirds of the article to your presentation of it. Esoglou (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. The problem is not the presentation of the Orthodox POV. That absolutely should be presented here. The problem is the extent and nature of the presentation to the point where it takes on the character of a polemic rather than an encyclopedia article. The solution is NOT to expand the so-called "Catholic" section so as to create a competing polemic. Instead, what we need to do is to trim the article to a more readable length. We should remember that Wikipedia is NOT paper and that we have the option of creating a separate article for the long, detailed discussion of the Orthodox POV while retaining just a summary of the key points here in this article. Wikipedia is also NOT a forum or a battleground. It is not the purpose of this or any other article to present a particular POV with the intent of convincing the reader of the rightness of that POV. We should describe the issue and the key points in dispute and then let the reader avail himself of the many external resources that can discuss those points in detail. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I have just noticed that this article is the 599th longest out of the 3,796,370 in the English Wikipedia, with, I think, only three religion-related articles ahead of it. Esoglou (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
And I notice that even after all this much time no attempt (other than trying to divert discussion to another matter) has been made to defend the POV disproportion of the article, with two thirds of it taken up by forum-like polemics. Esoglou (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"After the edict of Milan, the church at Rome was protected and grew in importance"[edit]

OK, here's another sentence for which there is a citation request.

After the Edict of Milan granted Christianity legal status, the church at Rome was protected and rose in importance.

It's true that the church of Rome was protected after the Edict of Milan, but so was all the Church, not just at Rome. Did the church of Rome rise in importance? Relative to what it was before the Edict of Milan, yes. But relative to the other two ancient sees of Antioch and Alexandria? I'm not so sure. Or, if Rome became more important relative to Antioch and Alexandria, I suspect it was because both Rome and Constantinople rose by dint of the fact that they were sees in imperial capitals. In any event, the see of Constantinople would soon be rising in importance, perhaps not to eclipse Rome but at least to challenge it. None of these nuances are reflected in this sentence. How should we fix this? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Another kudos to you for your comments. I am going to look up the edict to see if and how Rome is mentioned
Montalban (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The edict of Milan section offers no evidence for papal primacy. The bequest of churches doesn't suggest to me that the pope rules supreme Montalban (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, I agree that the bequests do not mean that "the pope rules supreme". The point of the section is to explain how the bishop of Rome grew in power after the Edict of Milan. The bishop of Constantinople grew in importance after Constantine moved the capital there and successive emperors gave the bishop of that see more power.
I think the point here is that the bishops of the major cities were given more power by secular authorities which helped them to assert their primacy. After all, this is how Constantinople came to have primacy "second only to Rome". Yes, it was done in the First Council of Constantinople but the motivation was political rather than theological. Rome asserted its primacy on the basis of scripture and tradition. Constantinople has no scriptural basis (and therefore had to challenge Rome's claim to a scriptural basis or, at least, the nature and limitations of that claim). Both cities are acknowledged as having primacy over the other three sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It is a fact, even if a perhaps unfortunate one, that wealth is power. Constantine richly endowed the Church of Rome (as also that of Constantinople). This was an element in the historical growth of the power of the Bishop of Rome. If Montalban wants to omit the information about these donations (by the still very much alive Constantine, and so not a bequest!), I will regret the consequent incompleteness but will not resist his action.
Of course, primacy does not mean, in the full sense, that "the Pope rules supreme". Christians are under no vow of obedience to the Pope, as religious are to their superiors. If he says "Jump", many may quite rightly decide to sit down instead. Esoglou (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Toledo and the filioque - the classic case of selective rule application[edit]

A third section so this stands out.

Whilst on this article Esgolou has chose to put multiple calls for ciations on every point on the article about the filioque itself ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque the notion that many popes arguing against the inclusion is apparently okay. Montalban (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Now the Toledo article is huge! Montalban (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It is a section largely if not completely irrelevant to the topic. Esoglou (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the problem here is symptomatic of a more general problem which is the approach of putting section headings to points which deserve at most one or two sentences. We should shorten the whole article by summarizing the points made in individual sections into sentences in a single section. One of the most egregious examples of this is the approach of giving each of the Ecumenical Councils a separate section when the whole point could be made in a single paragraph. I doubt that each of the ECs even needs a separate sentence each. I suspect that two or three sentences would suffice to characterize all seven wrt to the topic of papal primacy.


With respect to the "Council of Toledo" section which is now more about the Filioque than about that particular council, we should stop beating around the bush and stop making arguments with facts which is original research anyway. We should just come right out and say "Some Orthodox sources argue that the failure of Popes to stop the spread of the Filioque is an indication that, even in the West, the Popes did not (or could not) use primacy to enforce key points of doctrine." Then, we should back up that sentence with a citation to a source. All the details about the Council of Toledo and subsequent councils could go in a note or a reference or not be mentioned at all. This is not to say that those details don't belong in Wikipedia. I think they do; it's just that they belong in the Filioque article, not here.
If there is a secondary source that rebuts the above assertion regarding papal primacy and the Filioque, then we should present it. But we should not concoct our own syllogisms in rebuttal because that also would be original research. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree. No concocted syllogisms are admissible on either side. Esoglou (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a section that shows that despite papal protests local councils kept the filioque
Montalban (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
So change the heading to "Council of Aachen"? That was the council whose sanction of use of the Creed with Filioque Pope Leo III refused to confirm, not the council of 220 years earlier that, for all we know, he never even heard of.
In any case, no concocted syllogisms. Esoglou (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
No, that's only a slight improvement on what is basically a misleading section title. The point of the section is that there was a spreading movement among local bishops (supported by local rulers) to insert the Filioque. To me, it's an open question what the attitude of the popes was during the several hundred years that this was happening. Montalban's text suggests that the popes were actively in opposition and simply frustrated and impotent to stop it. The other possibility is that the popes felt that the insertion was doctrinally acceptable but politically problematic because of the opposition of the East. Based on the text that has been presented by Esoglou, it seems that as an accomodation to the East, the popes did not officially accept or sanction the insertion of the Filioque but neither did they actively oppose it (as Montalban's text suggests). I think the section title should be "Spread of the Filioque throughout the West" --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Richard. I must add that I think the logical conclusion is that the section has perhaps nothing to do with objections to papal primacy. The Council of Aachen acknowledged Pope Leo III's primacy by asking him to confirm its decision. After his rejection of the request, the continuance of the already established custom of chanting the Creed with Filioque would be a denial of papal primacy only - I admit that this is putting it perhaps too strongly - in the eyes of those who imagine that papal primacy means that, if a Pope says "Jump", every Christian should do so immediately, perhaps without even asking "How high?"! Esoglou (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Treatment of Council of Toledo in the Filioque article[edit]

I have copied over the entire "Council of Toledo" section to that article and renamed it "Spread throughout the Western Church". Please review my edits to that article and adjust it as necessary. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I did review and edit your addition to the "Council of Toledo" section of the "Filioque" article, without first looking at the context. I then found that most of what you put in from here) is dealt with in much greater detail further down in the "Filioque" article, where that article considers the much later events of the Council of Aachen, Pope Leo III's refusal to grant its request, and the still later 1014 event. I leave it to you to decide whether to remove it all again.
Does not the arrangement in the other article indicate how misleading it is to confuse, as here, 9th-century events with the 6th-century Council of Toledo? Esoglou (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

this section...[edit]

There's a section with the banner This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2011)

This is in error as the footnotes from #101 onwards attests. What's more it's probably added by one of the two who re-edited that section anyway. Montalban (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

How high?[edit]

I've removed a small section where argument against no one has been made. Someone edited into the article an admitted 'caricature' argument. No one has made the argument it mocks therefore I've removed it.

One person 'imagines' that the argument was made. But what's in his imagination isn't good enough for inclusion in Wiki. Montalban (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I support the removal of the text, all arguments should be well cited.MilkStraw532 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What is ill-cited about the statement in the article? Firstly, it is not an argument: it is a well-sourced report of a statement actually made by a critic. The statement in the article is: One highly confrontational critic of a papal statement declared: "I think the best thing to do is ignore it, and it will go away. It's not an authoritative teaching statement ... The problem here is that non-Catholics think when the Pope says 'Jump,' we all say, 'How high?'" The source given for the statement in the article is Patrick J. Reilly, "Teaching Euthanasia" (Catholic Culture). In what way does the source fail to support what the article says? Esoglou (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
An article about euthenasia by someone making a flippant rebuttal against some other unknown argument has no point being here on Wiki on this particular article whether you imagine that they're arguing it here or not.
Montalban (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The article is not by any means flippant. If the Jesuit whom it decries was flippant, it shows all the more clearly the attitude that Western Catholics do display with regard to papal directives. Much more dismissive than the Council of Aachen was towards Pope Leo III, on which you set so much store. Esoglou (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
What you could do is present an argument from people and then use this where it actually counter-argues against their position. As it stands the remarks are addressing no argument made here on this article.
There might well be people out there making such judgments about the RCC
Montalban (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
You have counted many cases of refusal to accept papal directives as "objections to papal primacy". This is reliably sourced evidence of even Roman Catholics, even Jesuit clergy, ignoring papal directives. Just as apposite as the cases you have so abundantly inserted into the article. Esoglou (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No. It's a straw-man argument. No one has made the statement, or even the inference that Papal Suprmemacy is a case of the Pope demanding people jump (even in a figurative sense). It's a straw-man because the nature of a straw-man is to address an argument not made. It's not good enough to say "People are opposing the Papacy" because the way those arguments are constructed are still not addressed by your 'well-sourced retort. Montalban (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I should go over this in a little more detail because it's a concept I don't think you've managed to grasp – given you've falsely accused me of this in the past.
There are arguments against the papacy.
There are some arguments against the papacy presented in the article.
Your quote addresses an argument against the papacy.
Your quote doesn't address ANY of the arguments presented in the article.
The fact that arguments have been made in the article and this is a rebuttal of arguments against the papacy does not make it valid because it's not addressing any of the arguments made in the article.
As I noted if you presented an argument in the article that it addresses, then you'd have a valid reason for keeping it in the article. You've not done this. Therefore as it stands it's countering an argument not made in the article. Therefore it's a straw-man argument. It's addressing an argument not shown.
That is the nature of straw-man argument, to build up an argument against a position not made and address that.
Montalban (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Father Paris explicitly claimed he was not obliged to obey the papal directive. An explicit as well as a clear case of disobedience. In what way is this factual instance of disobedience to a papal directive different from the other disobediences that you reckon as "objections" to papal primacy? Esoglou (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this another way...Who made the statement that all Papal directives have to be obeyed? Montalban (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

His opinion is not also necessarily that of all Catholics.
Montalban (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the quotation of the Jesuit cited by Esoglou does not specifically mention papal primacy but neither do any of the other quotes in the "Third Council of Toledo" section. You have yet to respond to my request to show that this council is used by a reliable source to argue against papal primacy. Esoglou's quote from the Jesuit priest Paris is not applicable because there is no indication that he is not discussing papal primacy. Neither for that matter is the preceding sentence about SSPX. So what we have is an article that is made overly long by the use of ad hoc Original Research arguments discussing papal authority rather than papal primacy. If you're going to start deleting text, then let us agree to remove all text that is not supported by a secondaray source that specifically discusses papal primacy. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The justification for mentioning Jesuit Professor John J. Paris was/is not directly the quotation of his words, but his action of blatantly disobeying a papal directive as not binding. However, on condition that Montalban also accepts it, I accept Richard's dictum that John J. Paris's action cannot be admitted to the Wikipedia article on the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff "because there is no indication that he (John J. Paris) is discussing papal primacy". (I presume that the word "not" was included in Richard's statement by an oversight.) Not only do I accept it on the stated condition, but I will apply it also to the other passages that Richard mentions. The Western Filioque local councils certainly were not questioning papal primacy. While it could evidently be maintained that John J. Paris did implicitly speak of the primacy of the Pope, it is quite clear that the Toledo councils and the Hatfield one made no reference whatever to it either explicitly or implicitly, and the Council of Aachen even acknowledged the Pope's primacy implicitly by asking him to confirm its decrees after its conclusion. So the mention of these councils is even more a strawman argument than is the mention of John J. Paris's disregarding papal directives. If mention of the councils is restored, so must mention of John J. Paris. Esoglou (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Pseudo-Richard there's just so many things wrong with your statement.
Firslty, I had cited a secondary reference in Whelton (I've now added another from Clark Carlton) which leads me to my next...
Secondly, Toledo's been totally removed by you guys re-editing it anyway - this seems to be a ploy - re-edit material make it too long or irrelevant and then remove it yourself on the basis that its too long or no longer relevant. And here too is something else done - the removal of the reference by Whelton that you now call for - earlier you acknowledged that it was there, and you said that even though it was a quote you'd trust that it said what I claimed it was - now you've completely reversed that position to asking for something that you've already acknowledged seeing! (it's that good cop/bad cop routine gone somewhat awry!)
Thirdly, you've already allowed non cited material here in the opening sections anyway - your application of rules ONLY emerged after I added an Orthodox section
Fourthly, Esolgou's quote is a straw-man NOT an issue about secondary sources, so you're comparing the wrong things anyway
Fifthly, you're now trying an argument of tu quoque which is a logical fallacy.

Montalban (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

John J. Paris's disregard for a papal directive and his declaration that no obedience was owed to it (which is what I cite) had much more to do with papal primacy than the action of the Councils of Toledo and Hatfield that made not the slightest reference to papal directives. There is no evidence that the Toledo and Hatfield councils were related to papal authority, but Paris's action was quite explicitly related with it. Esoglou (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Addressing an argument not made is a straw-man. Removing citations and then asking for citations is pointless Removing citations others have agreed to, but then demanding full quotes is equally pointless Montalban (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a section below for discussion precisely on the mention of John J. Paris's disregard of papal authority, a fact, not an argument. Esoglou (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

And again?[edit]

I see in this article Esoglou and Pseudo-Richard are yet again edit warring with an Orthodox editor. As a neutral third party who keeps on being called on to comment, I think it's about time I reported the three of you for consistent edit warring. Look at the size of this article, and what you've done to it. It reads like a theological dispute, not an encyclopedic article.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you read #POV above? Esoglou (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
There's been massive re-editing.
I would think that this should go to some kind of third-party arbitration
Montalban (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Much of the article was being re-written following many compromises by myself, and extensive negotiations between Psuedo-Richard and myself. We had agreed, pretty much to a formula. I would add in secondary references and remove un-supported material (I did this re: Athanasius), and to reduce the size of the article, (I did this with reduction of the conclusion). Pseudo-Richard pushed quotes into references, further reducing the size and enhancing the readability.

However onto this were arbitrary re-writes, requests for citations, etc. from a third party.

There had been progress. It seems to me that Pseudo-Richard has reversed course on the compromises and is agreeing with the butchery of the article and changes made by that third party. Montalban (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Also a number of the problems are invented. I had re: Council of Toledo a reference from Whelton. Pseudo-Richard accepted this. A third party re-edited the material and the reference was lost. Recently Pseudo-Richard asked for the reference

The problem was thus 'invented' because it was there, but removed by his colleague. Furthermore, having previously accepted the reference either he or his colleague then asked for full quotes. This is simply that I met an objection and then a new one is invented.

The Council of Toledo article was butchered, then made huge (despite apparently calling me to reduce articles). Irrelevancies were introduced by them and this viola they say that it's now irrelevant – and they removed it. These inventions are causing the article to lose cohesion and are totally against the negotiated process that Pseudo-Richard and I had previously been following. Montalban (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Papal authority vs. Papal primacy[edit]

I think the problem we're having is that we have no clear, mutally agreed definition of "papal primacy". Montalban's polemical "Orthodox objections" section includes two arguments: 1) the early ecumenical councils did not require the pope to convene them, be present at them (even via representation through papal legates) or to approve them. One actually went so far as to declare two popes to be heretics.

2) parts of the Church, both East and West, have ignored papal directives.

We're not arguing about whether these are "facts" or not, we are arguing about whether or not they are related to "papal primacy" or to "papal authority". However, we keep talking past each other because we don't have that clear, mutually agreed definition of what these terms mean.

I confess that I myself don't have definitions to offer but I think we need to work towards one or we will be still debating this as the second Romney administration comes to a close.

It seems to me that we need to back up and look at church polity first. Looking across all of Christianity, the first question is whether power rests with the congregation or with the ecclesial hierarchy. Radical fundamentalist Protestants insist that power rests with the congregation alone. Others such as Methodists and Lutherans recognize an ecclesial hierarchy with power residing with bishops and synods.

Catholics and Orthodox vest significant power in the bishop. What is not agreed is what authority one bishop has over another. The Orthodox recognize some authority of a patriarch over other bishops although I admit a personal ignorance to the extent of that authority. How much independence of authority does an Orthodox bishop have over his see? What does it take to depose a bishop?

In this context, "papal authority" in the Catholic Church could be contrasted to the authority of a Patriarch over the sees of his patriarchate. How much authority does the Pope have over his "patriarchate" (the Roman Catholic Church) compared to the authority of a Patriarch over his patriarchate? (NB: this discussion is somewhat off-topic though tangential to the topic of this article).

The next question is whether one patriarch has primacy over the others. It's clear that Rome and Constantinople have primacy over the other patriarchates but what is in dispute is what that primacy means. Both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches recognize an ecclesial hierarchy above that of the position of bishop but the RCC has a more hierarchical model than the Orthodox. This difference informs the understanding of the primacy of the Pope.

I confess that I don't know what power the Pope has to compel a Roman Catholic bishop to resign. My understanding is that he can ask a bishop to resign an administrative position (i.e. the episcopate of the archdiocese of Boston) but it is unclear to me whether the Pope can actually defrock and remove the individual's position as a bishop. Is episcopacy a function of being in charge of a see or is it more like being a priest which goes with the person regardless of what their actual responsibilities are at the moment?

It seems to me that the two questions of the authority of the Pope over the ecclesial discipline of an individual see and his authority to depose bishops are relevant to the Orthodox Church's willingness or refusal to submit to his authority. We should also comment that, while the Pope has ultimate authority over all Roman Catholic bishops, much of this is delegated to national conferences (not councils!) of bishops such as the USCCB.

We should move on to consider a separate question from the relationship of a patriarch to an individual bishop or group of bishops within that patriarchate. We should now consider the relationship of the Pope to ecumenical councils. The Roman Catholic Church has branded conciliarism as heretical. I suspect that the Orthodox Church would view conciliarism more in line with its view of how the Church should be governed. Many of the examples presented by Montalban seem conciliar in nature to me (i.e. the power of an ecumenical council to ignore, overrule and even depose a bishop, even a patriarch). The Roman Catholic Church, of course, rejects such a notion but I think it would help to present this issue in this way rather just than the presentation of facts that Montalban has composed. If I understand the Orthodox model correctly, I believe that it is acceptable for local councils within a patriarchate to call the patriarch to task for unorthodox views or even to depose the patriarch (? - I'm not so clear about whether this is true). These points should be presented to the reader to clarify the distinction between the Roman Catholic model and the Orthodox model. (NB: I recognize that some of these issues are covered or should be covered in Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic ecclesiastical differences. However, I think we need to consider this article in the context of that article and decide how much to talk about in this article vs. in that article.)

Instead of presenting a lot of trees to the reader, we should show him a picture of the forest and then show him some of the trees in that forest. Too much of this article focuses on providing facts as "arguments against papal primacy" and, in the process, fails to provide the reader with a conceptual overview of the key issues and approaches. This can be addressed by working on transforming Laurel Lodged's outline to emphasize these issues. I would critique Laurel's outline as focusing on the "facts" rather than on the conceptual issues. Thus, for example, the topic is not "Arguments from Church Councils" but rather the "Relative authority of an ecumenical council and patriarchs".

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably no definition seems possible of the extent of the prerogatives involved in primacy. EOC and RCC representatives meeting in Ravenna in 2007 agreed that "at least until the ninth century, a series of prerogatives was recognised, always in the context of conciliarity, according to the conditions of the times, for the protos (Greek for "first" or "primate") or kephale (Greek for "head") at each of the established ecclesiastical levels: locally, for the bishop as protos of his diocese with regard to his presbyters and people; regionally, for the protos of each metropolis with regard to the bishops of his province, and for the protos of each of the five patriarchates, with regard to the metropolitans of each circumscription; and universally, for the bishop of Rome as protos among the patriarchs. This distinction of levels does not diminish the sacramental equality of every bishop or the catholicity of each local Church" (paragraph 44 of the Ravenna document). The document also says: "While the fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West, there are differences of understanding with regard to the manner in which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations" (paragraph 43). This Wikipedia article, on the contrary, seems rather to deny that East and West accept the fact of primacy at the universal level. More than two thirds of the article presents what it calls objections to papal primacy, suggesting that there never has been any such thing as papal primacy or at least that there never should have been such a thing (this, it seems, is indeed the belief of one editor of the article), instead of pacifically expounding the different understandings of the manner in which papal primacy (accepted as factual, whatever may have been the reasons for it) is to be exercised and the different understandigs of the basis for this factual papal primacy. As a result only a minor part is devoted to the account of the different historical forms, not all of them necessarily just, that the factual papal primacy has taken. An editor who rejects the notion that papal primacy ever existed naturally classifies any objective information about the historical fact of these different forms as arguing for papal primacy - as we have abundantly seen. Esoglou (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard this seems to be another case of waiting for edits to be made before you find a problem. The incidents which are questionable were introduced by your colleague in the section

Other disregard of papal directives by Westerners

By waiting for the muddying of the waters with this section which isn't in any context about papal supremacy you now can address a problem that wasn't there before it was introduced!

Like when you called for me to reference something I'd done, but your colleague, in a re-edit had removed the reference. I don't know why the two of you are inventing problems to address.

If you wanted clarification on something I had written, I believe I have been responsive. Montalban (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

@Montalban: I put a fair amount of thought into writing my lengthy comment above. I may not be as knowledgeable as some of the other editors of Catholic and Orthodox articles but I would like to think that I am granted the occasional insight into the issues we are grappling with. I would hope that you would consider what I wrote more seriously than to dismiss it as "inventing a problem to address. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Well when one of you removes evidence then the other demands I present it, then you've invented a problem
If you wish to resume working out a formula that would be great but if you want to re-edit the Toledo section, ask for cites you've already accepted and change it till its so large and irrelevant that you then have cause to remove it, let me know... either way
Montalban (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been looking at the Google Books preview of Michael J. Walsh's "Roman Catholicism: the basics". In particular, the intro to the chapter on "People" provides some interesting insights along the lines of my own comments above. This is a link to the beginning of the chapter. This is a link to the section on "Papal Primacy". I like Walsh's approach because, although he writes from the Catholic POV, he provides a frank and honest discussion of the issues rather than providing the standard misconceptions about Catholic doctrine that both Catholics and non-Catholics share. IMO, it's worth a read. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is adding a section on disregarding papal directives is misleading the reader. It's to trivialise those who disobey the pope. You know this yourself Pseudo-Richard because it then allowed you cause to question whether people are talking about supremacy or authority - it's another of your invented problems - create a case of uncertainty and then raise that here for discussion - suggesting that certain parties are talking past each other

That small section should in fact be removed. IF you yourself are now saying it's not addressing supremacy! You can't have this both ways. Montalban (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard, ever since the First Council of Nicaea, ecclesiastical primacy (priority) has been linked with authority (exousia). Eastern Orthodox John Meyendorff, referring to the super-metropolitan primacy of sees like Alexandria with regard to all sees, whether metropolitan or non-metropolitan, in their area, and to which Nicaea applied the term power (exousia), wrote: "As a general rule, this latter form of primacy was defined in Nicaea as priority, and history shows clearly enough the nature of that priority: one can describe it as primacy of authority" (The Primacy of Peter), pp. 61-62. Meyendorff applies the same phrase to the Church of Rome: "The Roman Church was able to unite the various elements which fully justified its primacy of authority"; "... made its primacy of authority unquestioned in the Christian world" (Orthodoxy and Catholicity, pp. 58 and 65). Esoglou (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

John J. Paris[edit]

An editor keeps removing the mention of John J. Paris. Would he please explain what objection is he proposing to the well-sourced statement about this disregard of papal authority, a disregard clearly more evident, direct and explicit than the alleged "disregard of papal authority" by the Third Council of Toledo: "In 2005 the Roman Catholic Jesuit Professor John J. Paris disregarded a papal directive on euthanasia as lacking authority." Esoglou (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


No one has argued anything about euthanasia. No one has argued that when the Pope says "Jump" people ask "How high" Perhaps you should ask some friends or your teacher about straw-man, because it's obvious to me that what I've said hasn't explained it well enough for you Montalban (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Father Paris did argue about euthanasia. He disregarded a papal directive about it. Why do you talk about what is not in the article? The word "jump" is not in the article. Nor is "how high". Father Paris's action was a clear disregard of papal authority. On what grounds do you say it may not be mentioned? Esoglou (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is it?[edit]

Is there support for a resumption of co-operation?

Montalban (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Artificial problems[edit]

Aside from removing (through edits) material that others then demand to see, one artificial problem has emerged more recently.

The section Other disregard of papal directives by Westerners has given one editor cause to ask if we really are talking about papal supremacy or papal authority.

It has nothing to do with supremacy and therefore shouldn't be there. It's no point suggesting that myself and Esolgou are talking past each other on this because I didn't add the section.

I didn't then give it a straw-man argument in order to trivialise the whole issue of westerners disregarding papal supremacy.

The section has nothing to do with the article. Adding sections to the article and then saying in effect "Oh, now we don't really have a common understanding of supremacy" is to create a problem in order to address it Montalban (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"This despite the fact that popes had argued against adding to the Creed"[edit]

No source has been given for the claim that popes had argued (before 589) against adding to the Creed. If the statement remains unsourced, it may be removed. Esoglou (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What does it matter that the popes argued against this before 589? I suppose it's all academic now anyway, after that section's been removed from the article.


Montalban (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversial move presented as "uncontroversial"[edit]

User:Jojalozzo has been on a campaign of changing "the Pope" to "the pope" in spite of common usage and the rules stated in works such as this. He also requested that this article be moved from "Primacy of the Roman Pontiff" to "Primacy of the Roman pontiff", claiming that his request was "uncontroversial". I think acceptance of his claim was over-hasty. Not every Roman pontiff had primacy. In ancient Rome the Pontifex Maximus had primacy over the other Roman pontiffs. Only "The Roman Pontiff", capitalized, is unambiguous. The move should certainly be reverted, at least until discussion of Jajalozzo's decidedly controversial proposal. Esoglou (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the MOS, "pope" is only capitalized when it is followed by a person's name or when referring to a particular high-ranking individual rather than the generic holder of an office. I tried to down-case only those instances where the generic office holder was intended. Likewise "pontiff", "papacy" etc. are also common nouns since they don't refer to a specific person. I will go with BRD process here. Jojalozzo 19:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Jojalozzo. I have only wished that the question be discussed and will of course accept without difficulty whatever consensus emerges. As for WP:BRD, I do think you were bold. However, no reverting of the change of title has taken place (although I think it should have been reverted until after discussion) and I have not reverted your changes of capitalization of "Pope"/"pope" (it is enough that question be discussed on another page, without raising it here also). As for discussion, that is just what I would like to see. Esoglou (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
True, reverting isn't so simple for page moves that require an admin but I did check that there had been no previous discussion or controversy around this style issue. So let's work this out. Jojalozzo 20:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The term "primacy of the Roman pontiff" refers to religious doctrine (see WP:DOCTCAPS). The noun "pontiff" in this context refers to a generic officeholder (see WP:JOBTITLES). The MOS does not capitalize "pontiff" in either of these instances. Jojalozzo 20:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I still think "Roman pontiff" is too ambiguous. Under Julius Caesar, there were 16 of them at a time. But I don't think there is any such ambiguity about "Roman Pontiff".
Perhaps you can reply to my already noted expression of surprise with regard to a generic officeholder under the United States constitution/Constitution: I am quite surprised at the suggestion that, when speaking of the officeholder, we should write of the relations between the "president" and the "Congress" - or should it be "congress"? Esoglou (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not up on this history. Under Caesar were there 15 "Roman pontiffs" and a single "Roman Pontiff"? Where can I learn more about this? And where does this issue of many pontiffs play into this article?
I thought we were having the "Pope/pope" discussion on the pope talk page. In any case "president" is down-cased like "congresswoman" unless it occurs before a person's name. "Congress" is down-cased when it refers to a generic congress (common noun) and up-cased when it refers to a specific government entity like "Congress of Mauritania" (proper name). Jojalozzo 04:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Caesar increased the number of pontiffs in Rome. He did not institute a single capitalized "Roman Pontiff" (capitalization had not yet been invented), although there was a single "Pontifex Maximus" (a term we usually capitalize, don't we?). In the language in which we are writing and in whose modern form capitalization does exist, "the Roman pontiff" is ambiguous (ancient or modern?), "the Roman Pontiff" is unambiguous.
My remark about the customary capitalization of "the President", when writing, for instance, of the constitutional relationship between the President and Congress was no more than a response to your remark about the generic officeholder, as opposed to the particular individual holding the office. I agree that concrete discussion of the question is best left to the other Talk page. Esoglou (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, then I don't understand why having 16 pontiffs in Caesar's time has bearing on this issue.
Please explain what is ambiguous about "Roman pontiff"? Who else besides the Bishop of Rome (capitalized because it's the "correct formal name of an office") could the article be referring to?
It's likely we are misapplying the guidelines if and when we capitalize "Pontifex Maximus". That is, if anyone is applying the guidelines rather than just writing the way they are used to in non-Wikipedia context. A lot depends on how we are using the term. If it's an honorific like "His Majesty" then we would capitalize it. If it's referring to the holder of the office of high priest we shouldn't capitalize it. Capitalization of one term is usually a poor basis for making decisions about other terms.
It's my understanding that titles like "pope" should be capitalized only when we're using them to refer to a specific individual (either before their name or, for very high ranking people, in a context where it's clear which specific, very high ranking person we mean) and I think "pontiff" is pretty much the same. In this article, "Roman pontiff" is not referring to a specific pontiff but any person in the role of Roman pontiff. Jojalozzo 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The 16 pontiffs (lower case) of, for instance, the year 46 BC were Roman pontiffs (lower case), surely? In that context, what is meant by speaking of the primacy of "the Roman pontiff" (lower case)? I suppose primacy could be attributed to the Pontifex Maximus, but he was only one of the sixteen Roman pontiffs (lower case) of the time. He was not the Roman pontiff (lower case). Esoglou (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like there was no "Roman Pontiff" then so either this article is not talking about any of them or the title isn't accurate. The article currently says it's about the "Primacy of the Bishop of Rome". Why not use that title? We capitalize Bishop of Rome because it's the correct official name of the office. Jojalozzo 18:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with both your comment and your proposal. Esoglou (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I'll post a talk page request/discussion for that move... Jojalozzo 20:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just being picky here... I'm probably not going to oppose the proposed move to Primacy of the Bishop of Rome but Jojalozzo wrote some things that are not quite accurate perhaps because he was writing quickly and perhaps a bit sloppily. In pre-Christian times, there was no single "Roman pontiff", there were, using the example of 46 BCE per Esoglou, as many as 16 Roman pontiffs of whom the Pontifex Maximus was supreme. Augustus Caesar assumed the title of Pontifex Maximus and it became a title of the emperor until the time of Theodosius I when it fell into disuse. In 382, Gratian formally renounced the title and it is said by some that Pope Damasus I was the first pope to assume the title. So there was (in pre-Christian times) no single "Roman pontiff". However, there is now a "Roman Pontiff" and, as James Coriden asserts, the preferred title for the Pope is "Roman Pontiff" An Introduction to Canon Law by James Coriden. The pope is both "the Supreme Pontiff" (Pontifex Maximus) and "the Roman Pontiff".

This article would be OK to remain at its current title if "pontiff" were capitalized but using "Bishop of Rome" is an acceptable compromise so I won't object.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

May I be picky too? Coriden doesn't say that "the Roman Pontiff" is the preferred title for the Pope. He says it's the Code of Canon Law's preferred title, the only(?) other title used in the Code being "the Supreme Pontiff". Neither of these is the most common title outside the Code. They are uncommon in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, used, I think, only in quotations (list of both expressions together), less common than "Pope" (list), or "successor of Peter" (list). "Pontifex Maximus" (the Greatest Pontiff) is not really used anywhere as a title except on buildings, coins and the like, and the idea that it was used by Damasus I seems to be unfounded.
Perhaps we can all agree on "Bishop of Rome", while keeping our personal preferences, even regarding use of upper or lower case. Esoglou (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that for me. I was scratching my head over what Coriden wrote and your explanation makes sense. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:Yes check.svg Done(Non-admin closure)That's me! Have doubt? Track me! 15:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Primacy of the Roman pontiffPrimacy of the Bishop of RomePrimacy of the Bishop of Rome is what the lead sentence says the article is about, it avoids issues with the history and number of Roman pontiffs and it avoids issues with capitalization of "pontiff" Jojalozzo 20:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support. The word "pontiff" has several meanings and is not an everyday word. "Bishop of Rome" is more immediately intelligible. Esoglou (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support -- Perhaps Primacy of the See of Rome might be even better. Pontiff is derived from Pontifex maximus, the chief priest of pagan ancient Rome. I would dispute the accuracy of the lead: neitehr the Eastern Orthodox church, not the Anglican Church acknowledge the primacy: the Thirty Nine Articles explicitly deny his authority over the Church of England. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support There may have been a time when the Bishop of Rome was not the Roman pontiff. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support More comprehesible to the general reader. PatGallacher (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pontifex Maximus[edit]

So... I was curious about the term "Pontifex Maximus" and decided to ask a fellow Wikipedian who is Orthodox about it. You might find the discussion here interesting. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to that publication, I think the Wikipedia article on Pontifex Maximus is better on Christian use of the title. Esoglou (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Opposition... sections[edit]

The 'Primacy of the Bishop of Rome' is badly written. The article spends most of the time giving opposition arguments, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an theological argument website.

Here are a few of the problems:

'Opposition arguments from Scripture' It should be removed and its arguments used in other sections with in the article. Many points mentioned are Protestant arguments against Papal primacy and should be stated as so. For example, the bullet 'The granting of the Keys of the Kingdom is not to Peter alone; it is the whole Church, that binds and looses sins.' is written as a fact when it is actually a common argument used by Protestants. Its would be better to rephrase it to ' Protestants argue that in Matthew 16:18, the keys were not only given to Peter, but to the whole church'

Opposition arguments from early church history & Opposition arguments from Church Councils Also should be removed and merged with other sections. Many of these arguments are used by the Orthodox church and therefore doesn't need to be restated. Again, some points are written as facts without any explanation, example 'Rome is an Apostolic throne, not the Apostolic throne.' (I do not even understand that argument!)

Opposition arguments from orthodox doctrine This section seems to be well written, but it is takes up a large proportion of the article. I think its best to move it to a article on Orthodox beliefs, and just summarize the points here.

Suggestions I suggest to make one section 'Opposition Arguments against Papal Primacy' and divide it into two sub-sections 1. Arguments by the Protestant Church 2. Arguments by the Orthodox Church. Each should contain a summary of the key points and argument — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRose 00 (talkcontribs) 12:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Would you consider undertaking at least part of the work of revising? Esoglou (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with Desert Rose's criticism. BTW, the argument about Rome not being the Apostolic throne is arguing that there were twelve original apostles and thus Rome is only the apostolic throne of Peter. Papal Primacy is based in part on the doctrine of the Primacy of Simon Peter, a primacy that the Orthodox argue is not as powerful as the Catholics assert. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have created Eastern Orthodox opposition to the doctrine of Papal Primacy by copying the entire section "Opposition arguments from orthodox doctrine". It will likely have to be expanded with text from other sections of this article but it is, at least, a start. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Esoglou, I shall help with the revision, though it would have to wait until this weekend when I will have the time to read through everything that is currently present. Just be warned that I'm not great at writing... but I guess we have to begin somewhere ;)
Pseudo-Richard, Thanks for both the explanation and the new article! DesertRose 00 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It is now permissible to delete the entire body of text copied by Pseudo-Richard to the new article from this article. A simple "main" re-direct is sufficient and results in no loss of knowledge. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It would be better to include in this article a summary of the contents of Eastern Orthodox opposition to the doctrine of Papal Primacy than to simply link to that article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I have started making the modifications. I agree with Pseudo-Richard that its best to summarize first before we delete any content. I have written something for the Protestant View. I am ignoring anything that does not have any citations. Its best to start with a good section on the opposition arguments and then add more later on.
Please make any corrections and modifications needed. DesertRose 00 (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


I have written something for the Protestant and Orthodox view under 'Opposition to the doctrine'. Please add, correct, modify as needed. DesertRose 00 (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Could we delete everything from 'Opposition arguments from Scripture' onwards?. I noticed while writing that the arguments are the exact same as the arguments under 'Primacy of Simon Peter'... DesertRose 00 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In spite of the above declarations of intentions, nothing has been done in over half a year about the situation in which two thirds (!) of the article are spent on "giving opposition arguments, (while) Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a theological argument website". If those two thirds are not reduced, perhaps the solution is to devote equal space to arguments in favour and so remove the onesided pov character of the article. The proportion devoted to the opposition arguments would thus be reduced to two fifths, with a balancing two fifths for the positive arguments, and with the historical account of how the practice of primacy actually developed (whether justifiably or not) taking up the remaining fifth. Esoglou (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Obduracy has moved me to radical action. I've moved whole sections to Eastern Orthodox opposition to the doctrine of Papal Primacy leaving a skeleton behind. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations. Esoglou (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Laurel Lodged has graciously begun the process of returning the article to a Catholic POV which Esoglou has been hoping for for six months. Esoglou says that Wiki isn't about a 'theological argument website' this is one of the most disingenuous statements he has made. So long as the article presents a POV, then according to Esoglou it meets the criteria.

It was Laurel Lodged who said to me about a year ago that she wanted to see here Orthodox argument against papal supremacy. With most of that argument now removed from the article it will only be another six months before it's removed altogether - as it's not part of 'Orthodox opposition' and therefore Esoglou can edit it as he's not banned from editing non-Orthodox items

Congratulations all! Montalban (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

These remarks, so revealing of the writer's attitude, need no outside comment. Esoglou (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the irony, twice. The "What's the point in commenting" comment. And that particular comment coming from Esoglou
My own POV is widely known.
Wiki is not a Catholics apologetics web-site. I appreciate that Esoglou believes the veracity of the Catholic cause but that's never the issue. What is is the right of others to note that other viewpoints exist.
Montalban (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Montalban is quite right - I have supported the inclusion of opposition arguments in this article, particularly from an Orthodox perspective. And quite a body of material has been gathered that meets that objective. However, from a readability viewpoint, the article had become cumbersome to the point of unuseability. I have repeatedly requested Montalban to recognise this fact and to take measures to address it that would retain the arguments while improving the reading experience. It is for that reason that I have refrained from comment in this article for a long time now in the hope that a "holy peace" would bear fruit; in this hope I have been disappointed. With the creation of the other article, the imperative to have all the material in this particular article became less obvious. Given Montalban's obduracy, I finally lent my support to a radical solution - the wholesale transport of sections to that other article. I'm prepared to see the ongoing presence of the core of the Orthodox argument in this article on the understanding that most of the heavy lifting should continue to be done by the "See main" in the other article. This assumes that other editors will not litter the remaining skeleton arguments with "references" or "says who" flag requests. A more reasonable, less absolutist position by Montalban might have moved me to less radical surgery. By the way, we are not female. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Well said and well done. Esoglou (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with Laurel and I have also supported the inclusion of opposition arguments in this article. The objective of this article should not be to establish nor to refute the Catholic doctrine. NPOV requires that we present the doctrine and the arguments used to support it as well as the arguments used to refute it. What is not required is an extensive and detailed rebuttal which overweights the article towards the negative POV and makes the article unreadable. It is not our intent to exile the rebuttal arguments to another article. If you refer to my comment above, I suggested that we should summarize the objections rather than simply link to the other article. The reason that I created the "Opposition" article is that I did not want to delete all the detailed material even though the level of detail was excessive for this article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The end result however is that you have the Catholic case in this article and that is pleasing to Esoglou. I disagree that it made the article unreadable. It just happens to be that there was a lot of points to make in opposition. Montalban (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please translate from Latin[edit]

The following is a very important bit. Please translate it from Latin:

Council of Reims (1049)

The 3 October 1054 the Council has a dogmatic declaration about the primacy of the Roman Pontiff as Successor of Peter:

"declaratum est quod solus Romanae sedis pontifex universalis Ecclesiae Primas esset et Apostolicus":[51]James K. Workman (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A literal translation is "it was declared that only the bishop/pontiff of the see of Rome is the primate of the universal Church and apostolic". Why "apostolic"? Because the council deposed the Archbishop of Santiago, who had assumed the title of "apostolic" (see Schaff, History of the Christian Church: The Hildebrandian Popes, chapter 1, footnote 10). Esoglou (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Esoglou for the translation. I hope you don't mind that I put it in the article. My ignorance about how to jump from one wiki page to the other without losing the work prevented me from giving you credit by name. Also thank you for the explanation of the addition of "apostolic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by James K. Workman (talkcontribs) 02:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind thought, but in Wikipedia terms I do not qualify as a reliable source to quote in an article. Esoglou (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)