Talk:Primate (bishop)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity (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.
 

Lyon[edit]

Is the Archbishop of Lyon's status as Primate of France secure? I ask this because Lyon was not part of France, but of the Kingdom of Arles, until the later middle Ages. I'd have thought the Archbishop of Reims was the traditional Primate of France, or at least would have had a claim to the title... john k 20:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying to find out who the Primate of France is...I've created Archbishop of Paris and Archbishop of Reims, and I'll get to Lyon later, but in the process of doing this, I have seen all three referred to as Primate of France. (All three current ones, I mean, in addition to various times throughout history.) Adam Bishop 02:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What a mess. Perhaps one is the Primate of All France, and another is the Primate of France...I believe the Archbishop of Lyon is actually Primate of Gaul...The Catholic Encyclopedia, by the way, gives Lyon, Reims, Bourges, Vienne, Narbonne, Bordeaux, and Rouen! (but not Paris). Lyon and Vienne are now merged, and Narbonne and Bourges are no longer metropolitan sees, but that still leaves Lyon, Reims, Bordeaux, Rouen, and Paris as potential primates! Germany is weird, too. I know that Mainz was the primate before 1801, but Catholic Encyclopedia also gives Trier and Magdeburg as possibilities. And post-1801, none of those work - Magdeburg is no longer a diocese, and Trier and Mainz are not metropolitan sees anymore (not sure why not for Mainz - why would you make Freiburg a metropolitan see when you have the grand old see of Mainz in the same ecclesiastical province?). For Spain, Cathen lists Toledo, Santiago de Compostella, and Braga (which is in Portugal). Supposedly, at the first Vatican Council, the only folks recognized as primates were Salzburg (of Austria?), Antivari (of ?), Salerno (?), Bahia (of Brazil), Gnesen (of Poland), Tarragona (of Spain? of Catalonia?), Gran (of Hungary), Mechlin (of Belgium), and Armagh (of All Ireland)... This, I think, is the problem with informal titles. john k 05:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The limited recognition of primates that you cite was for precedence purposes. There were other primates at the First Vatican Council, but since they were cardinals they took their precedence as cardinals, who have higher precedence than primates. The bishops of those other sees cited (such as Ledóchowski of Gnessen [1]) were not cardinals at the time of the council and had to be placed somewhere, so they were recognized as primates and took their place after the patriarchs. Thus, the list of recognized primates at the First Vatican Council is not necessarily the complete list of primates. Pmadrid 8 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)

Suggest that the primates mentioned before the new title "Honorary," be moved there. I suspect there will be a bunch of them eventually.Student7 03:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fictional[edit]

I don't understand from the article that any of the titles of primate are "official." The article seems to differentiate between various levels of fiction. Some that were "historic" and therefore less fictional than the others? Why bother to differentiate?Student7 00:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Primate of Austria[edit]

I have deleted the "primate of Austria" in that list, as there has never been such a title. Since 1648 the archbishop of Salzburg - which is in Austria - bears the title "primas Germaniae" (primate of Germany). But by that time, Austria and Salzburg were part of the Holy Roman Empire of German nation. And the title remained although the borders have changed.

Explanation to this "confusing" stuff (see above): Primas Germaniae, that is of the Holy Roman Empire, was the Archbishop-Elector of Mainz (St. Boniface's see). Trier is the oldest diocese, but was not, afaik, primate: That's why legends make the diocese of Mainz even older. And since the Archbishop-Elector of Mainz sat in the Elector Council, there was need of another Prince-Archbishop to be primate in the Prince Council (where all other bishops were - but some Salzburg suffragans, but that's another story), and that was Magdeburg. I don't know why: maybe this was helpful for the Eastern colonisation. When Magdeburg fell to Protestantism, this title was transferred to Salzburg whose archbishop had for Centuries been legatus natus of the Pope. And when Mainz fell under the metropolitan authority of Mechelen due to the Concordat of 1801 (Freiburg was later), the primatial see of Salzburg remained alone. (The Archbishop of Regensburg, the former archbishop of Mainz, claimed to be named primate of Germany by Pope Pius VII. without a written document. but after his death, Regensburg fell itself under the metropolitan authority of Munich.) --84.154.102.251 (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Archbishop of Salerno[edit]

The text now says that the Archbishop of Salerno claims the title of Primate of Servia. On the face of it this is impossible. Was Sicily meant? J S Ayer (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

German as missionary language in Poland[edit]

I removed doubuious claims about it. In 10th century language of church and aministration of Piast state was Latin, not German. Moreover Poland wasn't baptized by German missionaries but via marriage of Polsih duke Mieszko I and christian princess Dubravka from Czech Přemyslid dynasty. Radomil talk 18:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

French primatial sees[edit]

As to the question to the confusing French primatial sees:

  • The Roman empire used to be divided into provinces, and France, as we know, was Celtical Gaul, Aquitania, Belgium and the Province. Without knowing exact dates, when primatial rights were awarded by the Pope, I figure that: Primate of All Aquitania was Bourges. Primate of Aquitania was Bordeaux. Primate of Celtical Gaul was Lyon. Primate of Belgium was Reims and Primate of the Province was most probably Arles, though Narbonne, the capital, claimed this title too.
  • A primatial see for all the Franconian Empire (Primate of the Gauls and Germany) was created in Sens, I think with authority over all these.
  • Somewhen, a primatial see for Novempopulania and Navarra was created in Auch, though these belong to Aquitania.
  • In the eleventh century, the primatial rights of Sens (concerning France, probably not concerning Germany) were by explicit Papal order transferred to Lyon, which indeed did not belong to the Kingdom of France at the time.
  • One century later, the archbishop of Vienne, archchancellor of the Kingdom of Arles, became Primate of the Seven Provinces: That was another, later Roman subdivision which divided France into Gaul and Seven Provinces. Probably, the authority of Lyon over Seven Provinces ended thereby. Since in the Seven Provinces, there were some primates, Vienne was now primate of primates. Today, the dioceses of Lyon and Vienne have joined each other.
  • Wikipedia says that the archbishop of Bourges was somewhen elevated to be even a patriarch. If this is true, a) the authority of Vienne ended at least over his own province, b) the patriarchal authority ended by forgetting, or by the loss even of the metropolitan authority in 2002.
  • At the end of the Middle Ages, a new primatial see, by today independent of Lyon, was instituted in Rouen: that of Normandy (by the way, including the Channel Islands).
  • The Archdiocese of Mechelen, founded in the 16th century, inherited somewhen (maybe with a state named Belgium being founded) the title of primate of Belgium.
  • The primatial see of Arles ended by dissolving, or, if the archbishop of Aix (and Arles) had any inheritance, then, when he lost the metropolitan authority himself in 2002. The primatial see of Bourges ended in 2002. Likewise ended the authority of Auch.
  • It must be mentioned that some dioceses styled themselves primatial, though being not even metropolitan (Dol, then Rennes, for Brittany, Nancy for Lorraine). And this may show a certain precedence, but is nowise the classical primatial title. --84.154.63.189 (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In Ireland[edit]

I've seen the Archbishop of Tuam and the Archbishop of Cashel referred to historically as Primate of Connaught and Munster respectively - when did this usage cease? Opera hat (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

Shouldn't it be pronounced prime-it?

Revert[edit]

Please revert to older more detailed central section, making corrections if needed. It appears to have been dumbed down. 14:49, 14 March 2012‎ 193.49.18.53 (talk)‎

Um, no. They need to be source. Dumbing down is adding unsource material. Removing the sourced list is improper and consider vandalism. The remove has been reverse and additional primates that have source are listed. Spshu (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Primates & Exarchs[edit]

"The closest equivalent position in the Eastern Catholic Churches is an exarch.[1] In the order of precedence of the Catholic Church, primates and exarchs may rank immediately below major archbishops, and precede metropolitan archbishops.[1]" - The statement regarding equivalency is only, if at all, true, in the Eastern Orthodox Church (and a careful reading of the cited source material would make clear that its text refers to such). An exarch in the Catholic Church is merely the bishop of a territory which has not, as yet, been elevated to eparchial status.

As well, the statement regarding precedence has no basis. It also cites the 1913 encyclopedia but the title "major archbishop" did not exist until the 1990s, so one can be assured that there is no corroboration there as to the position of primates versus major archbishops. I have deleted the first sentence and edited the second to limit it to primates preceding metropolitan archbishops. Irish Melkite (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Primates exist only in the West, and correspond not to the patriarchs but to the exarchs of the East." from source CE:Primate. Spshu (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Spshu, you are over a century out of date in your choice of source. What is much worse, you have falsified the source. It was in 1911 that the Catholic Encyclopedia published Auguste Boudhinon's article, in which he wrote that "Primates ... correspond ... to the exarchs of the East". When he wrote that, the only exarchs were in non-Catholic churches, not in Catholic churches. Yet you (by mistake, for I assume your good faith) attribute to Boudhinon the false statement: "The closest equivalent position in the Eastern Catholic Churches is an exarch." More recently than when Boudhinon wrote his article, exarchs have been appointed in Eastern Catholic Churches, but none of them is of the level of primate in the Latin Church. Esoglou (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

GCatholic.org[edit]

Is GCatholic.org a reliable source for this Wikipedia article? Or should it be classified as more or less a blog run by Gabriel Chow of Toronto? I withhold judgement until I hear the views of others. Esoglou (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Spshu apparently considers that GCatholic.org is not a reliable source, having now deleted from the article all that was attributed to that source (in spite of having reinstated it all earlier, when I myself had too hastily deleted the same material). I would like to hear other views too, before forming a decided personal opinion. Esoglou (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't consider GCatholic.org to be unreliable, but I don't see a reason to argue over it. Spshu (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I am undecided and have therefore repented of removing the GCatholic.org references. Spshu holds that GCatholic.org is not unreliable - or at least does not consider it to be unreliable - and yet has removed the references. A curious situation. Since I must have recourse to the reliable sources noticeboard to settle the dispute between Spshu and me on whether the Code of Canon Law is a reliable source for Catholic canon law, I'll also raise the GCatholic.org question there. Esoglou (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record: On the reliable sources noticeboard, the only judgement expressed was "There are undoubtedly far better sources for this kind of information than a personal blog. Use them." Esoglou (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
From personal experience outside this environment, I've found GCatholic occasionally useful as a start point in researching something but, as or more often, I've had to rebut or correct erroneous information presented by folks who, on being queried, cited GCatholic as their info source. I'd not consider it a reliable source. Irish Melkite (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Catholic canon law[edit]

Would Spshu kindly indicate the grounds on which s/he attached "citation needed" tags to statements about Catholic canon law after first deleting the quotations from the Code of Canon Law that explicitly makes those statements. Would Spshu agree that we raise on the Reliable sources noticeboard the question whether the exact explicit statements of the law in the Code are a reliable source for what is the law? Notice that, for good measure though unnecessarily, I have in each instance added a citation of a commentary on the Code of Canon Law that (of course) says the exact same thing - what more can Spshu require? Esoglou (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand the logic of Spshu's removal of the references in the article to what the Code of Canon Law says, while accepting references in the article to verbatim quotations of what the Code of Canon Law says given in another book. I have therefore raised the question on the reliable sources noticeboard, here. Esoglou (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Archbishop of Westminster as primate[edit]

I'm looking at this CNA article which specifically refers to Vincent Nichols as "the new Primate of England and Wales, Archbishop Vicent Nichols of Westminster". I would prefer an official news agency's interpretation over our reading canon law. Mangoe (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
If you think this is a reliable source, cite it in the article. It will be better than the sources that do not say he is a primate. Esoglou (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Primate" is not just Roman Catholic[edit]

The title "Primate" is not by used the Roman Catholic Church exclusively. For example, there are Armenian Orthodox Primates in New York, California, and many countries in the Middle East. This page should either specify somewhere that it is Roman Catholic Centered or it should include at least a mention of Primates outside the Roman Catholic fold. Jdzakarian (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The article already has a section on the Anglican Communion. You can add another on the Armenian Apostolic Church. Esoglou (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Cebu[edit]

Please don't keep inserting talk about Cebu in this relation. The cited article by J.K. Pangan calls the church in Cebu "the Primatial Church of Cebu". Even Pangan does not call it the see of the primate of the Philippines or indeed of any primate. The ordinary of Cebu is not a primate. (Neither is the ordinary of Manila, although he has, inaccurately, been called "de facto primate of the Philippines".) Esoglou (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The following was placed on my personal talk page. It belongs here.
Good day, concerning the issue of Cebu being the primatial see. Though, I agree with you that the archbishop of Cebu was not conferred the title primate by the Holy See directly, but it's already implied by the following reasons:
1) It is the cradle of Christianity and birthplace of the Philippine Church. This can be confirmed both in history and Papal concession via St. John Paul II.
2) The fact that the Church of Cebu preceded other local churches in the country, obviously. And the Basilica del Santo Niño de Cebu is described by Pope Paul VI as "the symbol of the birth and growth of Christianity in the Philippines" and more importantly the same pope called in Latin the basilica as "mater et caput... omnium ecclesiarum Insularum Philippinarum" (mothe and head of all churches in the Philippines) And that basilica is canonically is under the Archbishop of Cebu. The implication suggests such. "Primate" or "Primatial" from the latin "prima" which means first. Cebu is the first local Church established, the first in many of Christian Tradition, the first Christian city and one of its church called the head and mother of others in the country. This is true in every aspect of the word "prima." Thank you very much! Jason Lykan (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is about primate (bishop), not about the earliest episcopal see in a country, the country's cradle of Christianity. (By the way, the first diocese in Argentina was that of Córdoba. The see of the primate of Argentina is Buenos Aires, which was the first archdiocese, though not the first diocese, in the country. There is no primate of the Philippines. Esoglou (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for the quick reply. You know the Holy See already called Cebu the "Mother and Head of all Churches in the Philippines" (mater et caput... omnium ecclesiarum Insularum Philippinarum)? Isn't that primatial enough? Does it need to spell out "Primate" or "primatial" to be valid? Please prove to me that the description given by Pope Paul VI is not considered "primatial." Jason Lykan (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Does it need? In this article, it does. The title of primate has been granted to some bishop in only a very few countries. The Philippines is not one of them. That's what this article is about. Esoglou (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, thanks again for the reply. But can you agree with me that the Holy See itself says Cebu is "mother" and "head" of the Philippine Church? Of course, no question, it's clear from the apostolic letter I referenced. Then we have an agreement that Cebu gains precedence over other particular churches in the country, right? Look, I think we can reach a concession that, like the Archbishop of Westminster, the Archbishop of Cebu had not been granted the title Primate of the Philippines but a certain ceremonial primacy granted by the Holy See via Pope Paul VI might be worth mentioning in the Primate (bishop) article like example of the Archbishop of Westminster. Is it fair for you? Thank you and have a great day! Jason Lykan (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The Archbishop of Westminster is often referred to, but only loosely, as Catholic primate of England and Wales. That's why the article mentions this and debunks the idea. I am unaware that the Archbishop of Cebu is often referred to as primate of any place. (I also do not know that the Holy See has called the Archdiocese of Cebu mater et caput omnium ecclesiarum Insularum Philippinarum, a eulogy used instead of a particular building. And I don't believe that the other bishops and archbishops of the Philippines agree that the archbishop of Cebu has a certain ceremonial primacy over them.) Esoglou (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
First of all, we already established that the Archbishop of Cebu had not directly referred to as primate, and while I can grant you that the Archbishop of Cebu haven't been given the title primate and hence I grant also not calling him primate. Though, it can't be denied over his precedence to others which goes in my second point: concerning the title "mater et caput omnium ecclesiarum Insularum Philippinarum" is given to the Archdiocese's basilica doesn't negate the fact of its that it is mother and head of all those others in the Philippines. I have not yet mentioned the article given by J.K. Pangan. The concept of a structure connecting to one's authority is not alien to Catholic Church History. For example, a structure like cathedral is the throne of the bishop. Another example is St. Augustine of Canterbury calling the church "mother" and "primatial" church to his cathedral thereby making it the premiere see of all England and Wales. You can't refute what has been given by the Holy See and you keep conveniently wave it off and keep saying "you don't believe" it. And nice try downplaying the title to a "eulogy." That's not how it works. I tried to be reasonable with you but you seem to be incessant in denying the facts and you can't refute that with a shrug as if you refuted the argument and rendered the evidence useless. What I notice about the previous post about this page is that you didn't give any resistance when the Archbishop of Manila mentioned as a primate WITHOUT any references or proof. And now it seemed that I given you proof of the claim for the Archbishop of Cebu, you keep denying it.
I challenge you again to refute the apostolic letter UT CLARIFICETUR. Give me evidence that undo what Pope Paul VI described and you win. Don't give me reasons like "they don't agree with it," "it doesn't seem like it," "I don't think it is." If you can't, then I will continue writing about the Archbishop of Cebu (I won't refer to him as primate though, so your welcome).Jason Lykan (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
This is becoming a clear case of WP:SYNTH. You are leaping from something said about a church building, to applying it to the archdiocese, to applying it to the archbishop. You can't do that. We report what is said in the sources, and we don't add to them. Elizium23 (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, Elizium23. First of all, I’m sorry if you’re drawn to a conclusion of reading into the source (I assure you that’s not my intention), I would like to put everything in context in order to be understood:
I am not only basing the seniority of the Church of Cebu from solely what is said. Putting everything in framework, it's based on the reasons:
(a) the fact that the Church of Cebu preceded other particular churches in the country.
(b) Cebu is the cradle of Christianity of the country, [1]
(c) birthplace of the Philippine Church,[2]
(d) the first Christian city, [3]
(e) Cebu is the first capital of the Spanish East Indies (that includes the Philippines among other nations nearby like Guam, Marianas Island, etc.)
(f) the two towers: Cebu Metropolitan Cathedral and Basilica del Santo Niño are the very first church structures erected in the country,
(g) Cebu is called the “seat of Christianity in the Far East” and “Mother Church” of the Philippine Islands. [4]
(h) Cebu is called the “spiritual capital” of the country, [5]
(i) And finally, with the enumerated facts, the Holy See, recognizing its precedence, it declared the Archdiocese’s basilica as “mother” and “head” of all churches in the country. [6] Now putting this in context, this event was in 1965 celebrating the four centuries of evangelization in the country celebrated in Cebu,[7] recognizing 400 years of Catholic Christianity and evangelization preached in Cebuand it’s temple and called it “the symbol of the birth and growth of Christianity in the Philippines.”[8]
References
Please, please don’t take my word for it, take time to read the references they’re all available online or word search it, and I’m not reading into the titles. Now considering the evidences structured in this context, does these immediately translate to the precedence to the Archdiocese of Cebu? Well, obviously. Denying it takes mental gymnastics to come to a conclusion that it isn’t. What happened in the discussion is that the facts were just waved-off conveniently, especially the title of the basilica that’s why I focused my challenge there. The Archbishop of Cebu, while not the primate expressed by the Holy See yet, it has a precedence in other Churches in the country (and I grant it's just a honorific title as state previously than actual), just as probably like the Archbishop of Baltimore as made example in the page. Thank you very much! Jason Lykan (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
You are allowed to make simple calculations. Therefore if a source says a bishop was installed in 1995 and another source says he held office for 5 years, then you can say he left office in 2000. That's the extent of what is permitted, simple math. Even if it's terribly obvious to you, and you think no "mental gymnastics" are needed, we still need sources which say what you want to say. In fact it was frequently placed on Cardinal Luis Tagle's article that he was "de facto" primate of the Philippines. There was of course no source provided for this either. Also, there is a protracted dispute on the article of Pedro Calungsod about whether he is from Cebu or Ilonggo. So you see, this seems to me a local matter that is borne out of intense pride in one's city/island/country. I am glad you are willing to go to bat for your home town of choice, but Wikipedia cannot support these disputes, and we have to abide by the verifiability and neutrality policies. Elizium23 (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Elizium23, thanks for the quick reply. I agree with you in all points. The Pedro Calungsod issue is a moot point unfortunately since it can't be verified if he is from Cebu or Ilonggo, which makes the tug of war understandable. I have to consult to you on this: if I write in the page "Cebu preceded other local Churches in the Philippines" (though I would mention the disclaimer of it being not yet primatial church, and its precedence are purely honorific than actual) and cited, let say, two sources: (1) a narrative church history beginning with the genesis of Cebu (which also cites the title "Seat of Christianity in the Far East" for Cebu) from a credible ecclesiastical website, (2) the Holy See saying it's the cradle of Christianity in the country. It's simple calculations really, the Far East is bigger than the Philippines and Cebu is the "seat" of the Far East; not to mention also "cradle of Christianity" of the country. Is that permissible? Jason Lykan (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Even if it were true that "Cebu preceded other local Churches in the Philippines", you cannot write it in this article, which is about bishops who have the title of primate. What would you think of writing in this article: "Philippi preceded other local Churches in Europe"? (The earliest record of a baptism within Europe is that of Lydia and her household in the Acts of the Apostles 16:15.) You might find some other article in which to put it, but it has nothing to do with the title of primate for a bishop. Esoglou (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
From the presentation put forth, Jason Lykan, you may have a case, but as Elizium23--as I understood it--emphasized writing an entire paragraph for such argumentation tends to be tedious and--could possibly-- violate the charters of this page. Just state your facts, however simple calculations aren't prohibited. On your consultation--though, this was primarily for Elizium, I will "throw a penny" nonetheless--that Cebu place as "seat of christianity in the far east" may be a good case of precedence for the Catholic Church in-the country--I noticed you exclude the Far East for that precedence by the way. Does precedence of a ecclesiastical community translate to its bishop. I may tend to lean on the affirmative as the article suggest that "often based in a city other than the present capital, but which was the capital when the country was first Christianized."
To be fair Esoglou, the article suggests that the Archdiocese of Baltimore--and its bishop--has a precedence, so as a reader it's not so scandalous to include other side facts from other dioceses.Crygon245 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Points taken Esoglou and Crygon245. Thanks to you two both. Again, I apologize for not getting to the point, it could have save us the arguing, and also I agree with your second point, crygon. It's not really a scandal about it.Jason Lykan (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Crygon245 rightly pointed out the possibility of misinterpreting the mention of the Archbishop of Baltimore, which was not about a calculation "suggesting" something: the cited source states explicitly: "the Holy See granted to the Archbishop of Baltimore the precedence in councils and meetings, held by the prelates of the United States". Esoglou (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
It's fine to make simple math calculations as Elizium23 and the by laws of WP states--it is implicit in its nature by the way. I stated Jason Lykan's reasonable presentation and instead of using using longer methodology--which is not in itself bad--he could have used the argument Cebu being the "seat of christianity in the Far East"--a sort of quasi-Jerusalem in the southeast, I presume for Catholics--than making long presentations of "firsts". Simple math: Far East > the Philippines islands. If Cebu is the center of Christianity--Catholic, by the way, since there were Nestorian Christians also before--in the Far East, how much more the Philippines? Same also with his other premise, if Cebu is the birthplace of the Philippine Catholic church, logically, it's the first ecclesiastical community. Simple. I checked--as far as my critical source thinking goes--the references of the claims. The former is from a great Vatican-sanctioned ecclesiastical gathering of bishops--International Eucharist Congress, it says--and the article seemed to be the official historical statement for the event in 2016 based on the place of dispute--Cebu. If the Holy See doesn't agree Cebu as the "Seat of Far-East Christianity,"I see no evidence yet--though, it strange if it's published without being sanctioned by the Vatican See. The other is the Holy See through the lips of the Catholic saint John Paul II conceding the place which was first Christianized which bring back to the statement of the article about Primates to wit: "... often based in a city other than the present capital, but which was the capital when the country was first Christianized." Coupling with the ever divisive mother-head argument of its temple, I say as a disinterested observer my leanings now may be permissible to include that fact in the page. Nonetheless, it should quickly be noted to include that Cebu--may it be precedent in other local churches--is not yet considered a primatial see but a senior Church, that's all! Nothing more, nothing less and I believe this article is a good vehicle to decimate that fascinating side fact. Crygon245 (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think I understood you the first time you suggested, Crygon. While I agree on all your points, you need not to beat it to the ground. What you're doing is almost showboating, if I may add. Though, thank you for contributing. I hope we can come with an agreement finally. Jason Lykan (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.75.105 (talk)