|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saint Peter article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This page was previously nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, please review the logs of any previous moves and/or any discussions listed below.
|Saint Peter has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
I believe St Peter should appear under the following Wiki category page:
Requested move 7
This article utterly fails at answering whether Peter is considered to have actually existed by mainstream history. The introductory paragraph is riddled with "according to the New Testament", "The New Testament indicates", "According to Christian tradition" and so on. It doesn't get any better as the paragraphs in the section titled "Accounts outside the New Testament" begin with phrases such as "In a strong tradition of the Early Church", "Later accounts expand", "In the epilogue of the Gospel of John", "The mention in the New Testament", "Catholic tradition holds" and so on and on and on and on. Scrolling down further, I can see that the section titled "Writings" begins with "Traditionally, two canonical epistles and several apocryphal works have been attributed to Peter." In other words, there doesn't seem to be any evidence for his existence at all mentioned on this page.
The way I see it, either this guy is not historical, in which case he should be clearly and obviously labelled as such, or he is, in which case according evidence should be mentioned and linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Or, if we're not going with false dichotomies, there's not really enough evidence or good arguments either way to say whether or not he existed. I mean, we're talking about a guy living in the backwaters of the Roman empire who was a follower of a then-minor sect within an unpopular minority religion. It's not like we can go check his social security records. Even if one assumes that the New Testament was made up at its latest possible dates to promote some sort of "mythical" Jesus, Peter's still important enough that there was probably some Peter in oral narratives the NT drew upon (if Peter wasn't one of the folks involved in crafting the original myth).
- History isn't science, you can't just demand firm answers one way or another. It's a matter of weighing various narratives within what we can ascertain of their original context. Granted, science has to be taken into account, but it's not even scientifically proven that Alexander the Great existed, and he was way more popular in his time than Peter was.
- So, short answer? It's not "either/or," it's a bunch of "maybes" and shoulder shrugs, which isn't unusual for history. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- The article on math fails utterly to establish that 2+2 does indeed equal 4 as well. This is because these facts are so patently obvious, they do not need a source. I might also point out that every time the article says "according to scripture" or something similar, it is, in fact, referring to a primary source that confirms his existence. The bible is such a popular religious book that people forget it is also ancient source material.Farsight001 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding recent edit warring for a Protestant POV
I myself am a Baptist, but I understand that Protestant hagiophobia is a minority position in Christianity throughout the history of the world. As such, to remove elements for being too "Catholic" would be undue weight. Per WP:COMMONNAME, this article is Saint Peter. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The De-Romanization of This Page
To all those who have found themselves opposed to my recent edits: These edits are not designed to target Catholicism or the various Orthodox religions; they are designed to give this page less of a Romanized (Catholicized) bias. They are designed to fairly represent all members of the Christian faith who believe in Simon Peter's service to the Lord. This isn't about anti- or pro-Catholicism at all, but a fair, decent representation of historical figures (something which Wikipedia is all about.) You see, the article has discrepancies and contradicts itself: At some points in the article, Peter is referred to as having been venerated by certain Catholic and Orthodox religions. Elsewhere, however, specifically in the most noticeable sections of the article, such as the box reserved for basic points of information. This edit is designed to make Wikipedia, and indeed, topics involving Christianity a more inclusive, unbiased region. I ask you all to please stop fighting these edits solely in the name of your own specific denominations, and to consider the views of all users of Wikipedia as equal. Also, to Ian Thomson, this is not a "Protestant" revision, but a revision taking place in order to ensure fair, unbiased, factually-displayed presentation of information. --Noldoxis 01:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- The majority of sources describe Peter in his role as a saint and as the first pope. Wikipedia sticks with sources. Since we don't exactly have video footage of him, all we can do is stick with historical documents written about him throughout history (more specifically, academic summaries of them, since we don't do original research).
- Per WP:COMMONNAME, we stick with whatever name the majority of sources commonly refer to a subject as. A Google scholar search for saint peter pulls up over 1,040,000 results. A search for "simon peter" -saint pulls up 14,300. This means the article should remain "Saint Peter."
- Per WP:BOLDTITLE, the first sentence should work the name of the article in there as soon as possible. This means the article should start off with the words "Saint Peter."
- Per WP:GEVAL, we do not give the minority protestant position that's only a few hundred years old and rather Anglo-Germanic equal weight and validity as over 1900 years worth of Catholic and Orthodox descriptions from all of Europe and significant portions of north and east Africa and west Asia.
- And the tradition of Peter as the first pope is accepted outside of Catholicism by the Coptic, Ethiopian, Greek, Slavic, and Syrian Orthodox churches; as well as Episcopalianism and some other protestant groups who just happen to reject further succession. The idea of describing Peter as specifically the Roman Catholic Pope (as if it's only a Roman belief) and not just The Pope of The Church is a WP:FRINGE view at best, WP:UNDUE weight no matter what.
- Your first edit included the summary "to avoid a more Catholocized page," you titled this thread "The De-Romanization of This Page," and you think it's possible to factually document "Simon Peter's service to the Lord" -- it could not be more obvious that you're editing with a heavy protestant fundamentalist bias, don't pretend you're anywhere close to fooling anyone. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Thomson, indeed there are many sources of this type, and thus, should be treated as sources, not as absolute fact, just as we treat biblical sources. Thank you, --Noldoxis 01:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Did you read a thing I wrote? Yes, there are sources on the subject, Wikipedia sticks with those sources, and almost ten times the number of academic sources discuss Peter as a saint than as just "Simon Peter." That's because, when all is said and done, the majority of those academic sources realize they're dealing with materials written by people, not photographic evidence. That's why scholars treat materials about Peter as religious narratives (instead of history), and the majority of those narratives concern Saint Peter, a third of the time as the first Pope (about 357,000 results, almost four times just "Simon Peter"). To "De-Romanize" the page as you tried would be excluding 90% of academic sources in favor of an extremely sectarian protestant view. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Ian.thomson I now accept and agree with your argument. I will no longer attempt to edit this page in this manner.--Noldoxis 01:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
On earlier debate
The description "first bishop" needs a source; piping it to "Apostolic succession" is insufficient.
Further, I am unaware of any tradition of Saint Peter as the "first bishop" ordained. It is certainly not listed in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article cited: [Saint Peter]. --Zfish118 (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Apostolic succession is the wrong terminology for Petrine or Papal succession. Apostolic succession is a different, specific doctrine of one bishop ordaining another in an unbroken line from the apostles. All bishops have it. Furthermore, Peter is not really the "first bishop", since all the apostles were ordained at the same time during the Last Supper. He is first among equals, yes, but to say he is "first bishop" seems to be according a chronological attribute to him that is not asserted and not necessarily true. I have corrected the errors in the article. I also replaced the hardcoded reference to Pope Francis with Francis. Elizium23 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Reading through the article text, it seems that "first bishop of Rome" is the accurate label to be used in the lede. Elizium23 (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- He was the first bishop...of Rome (Pope=Bishop of Rome).--126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is somewhat of an "old church" (Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican/etc) discussion. IMO, non-denominational Christian churches don't see Peter as a bishop of anything since they do not have this leadership structure. I would suggest the term's removal, but I understand that I'm probably in the minority so I'm just making this a comment for the record and not really a suggestion. Ckruschke (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Ckruschke//
All right, where do I start? The source for Peter being the very first Bishop is the Gospel narrative itself. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus tells Simon, Son of John that he is now Peter, thereby ordaining him the first Bishop.
It is true that all Bishops have Apostolic Succession. All Bishops have Apostolic Succession because all Bishops are traceable, via the other Apostles, to Peter. Despite what Elizium23 said (and this is where (s)he went wrong, everything before that being true), however, Peter was ordained by Jesus before the Last Supper, as noted in Matthew 16:18.
Last but not least, since the Bishop of Rome is Pope by definition (and that's only because Peter founded the Diocese), saying first Bishop of Rome and first Pope is redundant. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- A citation is needed to back up your assertion that the "Rock narrative" was Peter's ordination, and not at the Last Supper. Elizium23 (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Citation: Matthew 16:19.
- "I give you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven."
- That's the very next verse! In what possible interpretation of this passage is Jesus not investing Peter with authority? That's all Ordination is, even today. It is an investment of Sacramental authority. Even though the Bible does not use the word "Ordination" ("Χειροτονία" in Greek, apparently), it does give the very definition of what would make this the very first Ordination within the New Covenant, in that Jesus gives Peter the authority to consecrate.
- Not the point: I never even used the exact phrase "Rock narrative."
- Point: The Last Supper was not the first investment of Sacramental authority. Jesus having picked out Peter and given him the Keys was. The Last Supper added to that authority, specifically with the establishment of the Eucharist, but Peter became the first Bishop before that. All Bishops do have Apostolic Succession as you pointed out, but only because they are traceable to Peter via the other Apostles. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The Mysterious El Willstro - With all due respect, and I honestly mean that, the above "proof" that you state are simply your interpretations of the script. Jesus did not "ordain" Peter as a Bishop in general any more than he was the first Bishop of Rome or that some type of sacremental authority was invested in Peter over the other apostles at or before the Last Supper. From what denominational or pastoral source have you been taught/told this because I've never heard it in either my on again/off again church upbringing or my non-denominational adult church going. Clearly I'm not saying only I can be right as obviously this is just my POV and OR, but as far as I'm concerned your above discussion is also your POV and OR as your only "source" is your interpretation of the Biblical text.
- Not being difficult or belittling your take, but you state the above with such conviction as essentially basic fact and I've never heard this so I'm a little confused. As I said back in February, this is in my POV an old Church viewpoint that is based on nothing else but tradition. Ckruschke (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
- This would take a little more time and legwork, but for a Church document other than the Bible, I could track down the prescribed formula for what a Bishop says during an Ordination Mass, right before he ordains a man as a Priest or Bishop. This particular Bible passage, Matthew 16:18-19, is always read during the Ordination Mass, either by the Bishop himself or by someone delegated by him. It is read at every Ordination, with the implication that it describes the very first Ordination.
- Also, it's not that Peter's authority over the Sacraments was greater/"over" (more efficacious) than that of the other 11 Apostles. (After all, a Host is still consecrated whether it was consecrated by the Pope himself or by some unknown Priest in some remote church on a wooded hilltop.) Rather, Peter's Ordination was the source of that of the other Apostles, and through them that of all Bishops even today and then forever in the future. For an analogy, imagine that a single 1st Candle is lit by a match, and then all other candles are lit either by that candle initially or by each other later. They all have the same flame, but they all derived it from the initial candle. Well that initial candle would be Peter, if the flame stands for the Sacramental powers of a Bishop. Jesus is the match that started the flame, Peter the founding candle, and the other Apostles the first 11 subsequent candles lit by the initial candle. (Peter also consecrated as Bishops 4 men who had not known Jesus personally. These would be Paul, Mark, Linus, and Hyrogoras.) So, I think you might have misunderstood what I actually said there.
- Anyway, let's track down that prescribed formula, around which Bishops' sermons at the Ordination Mass are built. The story of Peter's Ordination by Jesus is part of every Ordination Mass for a reason. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)