Talk:Catholic Church

Recent edit war over note

I'm not going to revert this edit again; rather, I'm just pleading for some reasoned action by the parties edit warring over the section. I realize that in mediation, you seem to have agreed that the church prefers to call itself the "Catholic Church". I take no position on the issue, but at least one editor is disputing a statement being added into the article to that effect without a secondary source. This is required per WP:V, no matter your opinion on the issue. It doesn't seem like it should be that difficult to find a secondary source simply stating that the church prefers to call itself as such.

Anyway, as a non-involved admin, I'm going to be watching the page for edit warring, and I will not hesitate to block editors who revert each other without reason or discussion. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I already explained this. 1.) Secondary sources are PREFERRED, not required. 2.) Extremely obvious statements require NO citation in the first place. Thus, that you say a secondary source is required is in no way, shape, or form, remotely true.Farsight001 (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Farsight. This sentence is not claiming anything about the name of the Catholic Church. It is just being used to state a fact - an acceptable use for primary sources. The note was agreed line by line in the mediated consensus, and also contains the unreferenced sentence "The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance." which Gimmetrow and Laserbrain curiously do not want to remove. The sentences are both based on primary sources and point in different ways. Both are part of the mediated wording. Xandar 23:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that "Catholic Church" is used more commonly than every other term the Church uses in its own documents? I am disputing this sentence because I believe it is wrong - that there are other terms used as frequently or more frequently than CC in the Church's own documents. Do you actually dispute that the Church refers to itself in various ways? This is not related to the page rename - this is about a claim in the text for which you have failed to provide sources or clarify, despite a proposal on the table two months ago that was agreeable to most people and would have addressed this issue. At this point, because of the refusal to change the text or discuss the issue, it is an issue of WP:Verifiability policy. Gimmetrow 00:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Grimmtrow, you have long since crossed into the realm of disruptive editing. I have explained repeatedly to you why your request is unnecessary and silly and you simply continue saying the same thing over and over and over again, whilst completely ignoring the fact that I'm saying anything. The page on disruptive editing describes this sort of action as a clear identifying mark of a disruptive editor - "repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits." If you want us to take you seriously, ignoring our explanations and repeating yourself rather vainly I must say, is not going to help you achieve that at all.Farsight001 (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And I have explained to you that the assertion in the text is not obvious and therefore, if editors will not change it or provide sources as required by Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, then the assertion doesn't belong. You have not provided any evidence. Gimmetrow 04:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Farsight, have you considered that you might be able to find a secondary source that backs up your claim within like five minutes and put this whole thing to rest? --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So is this your Farsight and Xandars way to tell Gimmetrow to please shut up? You know like you both have already done to Taam and Cody and others here? Or maybe you can call Encyclopedia Britannica rubbish again.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Farsight001 and Xandar but without agreeing with 100% with Taam, Cody and LoveMonkey. I kind of agree with Gimmetrow although I'm not as exercised about this issue as he is.

The challenged statement needs a citation to a reliable source that says exactly that. To point to a handful of documents and make an assertion based upon textual analysis of those documents is already original research; to widen the assertion to documents beyond those cited is totally unacceptable. I doubt that we will find a citation that supports the assertion made in the current text and so the best course of action is to rewrite the text so that it is supportable.

I think the best direction to head towards is to say "In some of the Church's core documents (e.g. Catechism, Lumen Gentium, Humani Generis, whatever), the title 'Catholic Church' is used far more frequently than 'Roman Catholic Church'.] This avoids making assertions beyond what we can support with citations.

--Richard (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is where misuse of policies takes place; when the tide goes against find any policy to throw up to cause contention. Richard, with your statement the next word out of Gimme's and Cody's mouth is how frequently? How many more times is it used? What source for that? Suffice it to say this language was the result of a months long mediation. If anything, Gimme and company need to stop editing the article, bring the issues solely tot he discussion page until such time as a compromise is reached.

This is petty, it is choking on gnats, and follows closely in their POV and resistance to accept reality. I again strongly suggest you fellows get a personal blog where you can pontificate on your personal views to your heart's content.

There are no references for citing what names the church uses most; they do not exist. I am not aware of a single academic that has counted the names of the Church in all of the documents for its 1700 to 2000 year history. Frankly, I think it an impossible task because one cannot be sure to have obtained a view at each and every document for the entire history. What is self-evident is that the Church uses Catholic Church on all of its most significant documents. That is all the sentence is attempting to reflect to the reader; nothing more and nothing less. Guys, patience is one thing, but you appear to seek a special place in the minds of each editor on this page. That type of karma will reap some really bad things. It is time to back off for a short while and accept reality. Just a thought. --^StormRider 19:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

StormRider wrote "There are no references for citing what names the church uses most; they do not exist. I am not aware of a single academic that has counted the names of the Church in all of the documents for its 1700 to 2000 year history. Frankly, I think it an impossible task because one cannot be sure to have obtained a view at each and every document for the entire history."

Richardshusr responds: Yes, precisely. And that is why the sentence in question should be altered or removed. It's the same argument as the one about the "official name" of the Church. If you can't find a source that says it, then the sentence cannot stand.

StormRider continued "What is self-evident is that the Church uses Catholic Church on all of its most significant documents."

Richardshusr responds: Saying something is "Self-evident" works in Declarations of Independence but not it won't fly in Wikipedia. However, if we allow ourselves some leeway regarding Original Research, we can examine these so-called "most significant documents" and determine whether the assertion is true for the ones that we pick. The proposed change to the current article text is to narrow the assertion to be limited solely to documents where we have visually inspected the text and determined the truth value of the assertion. With citations, any reader can verify whether or not the assertion is true for those documents. Since we would make no assertion about the frequency of use in any other documents, we would stand on unassailable ground.

--Richard (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally think we have already crossed boundaries into subjective territory here. Neither party can argue that they are firmly within a policy-bound right to either include or remove the sentence. As such, it would seem prudent to stick to the statement agreed on in mediation. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:V. The editor who wrote the disputed sentence (the same editor who wrote the text that originally led to mediation, by the way), refused to discuss it during mediation, which therefore prevented the formation of consensus. However, if you think the mediation result should stand, then at the end of mediation the sentence was tagged with [citation needed]. Recall, it took multiple RFCs and a mediation over the course of a year to get one unsourced, biased word removed from the article. During that time, the editor who originally added the text refused all attempts at compromise. The same editor also wrote the now-disputed sentence, also unsourced and biased, refused to discuss it during and after mediation, and still continues to refuse all attempts at resolution. Some might characterize that sort of behaviour as obstructive WP:OWNership. Indeed, you might say this issue is "petty", but petty issues shouldn't take 4+ months to resolve. Remember, there was a proposal on the table months ago that I, Richard and Sunray supported, and it didn't get implemented because of an objection from the same editor. Gimmetrow 19:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you—but I'm not sure folks are ever going to see eye-to-eye on this. Articles "should" be based on reliable, third-party sources. But what if several editors are hell-bent on putting the text in and insisting that there are no secondary sources and the primary ones should appease readers? I'm trying to view this from a casual reader's perspective. Will they read that note and think, "How do they know that's what the church prefers?" and start looking at the sources? Further, will they reject the Vatican sources as proof of this statement? Dunno... and the ArbCom case is going to be rejected because it was poorly-constructed and unclear in its scope. I don't see a clear answer on how WP:V should be interpreted here. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a complete falsehood, Gimmetrow. Several compromise versions of the text of this very line were presented to you, including one that you had suggested yourself earlier. You rejected all these alternative wordings and changed your position yet again. After that some of us gave up, since you seemed resolved never to come to agreement. Similarly you have not commented on the other uncited statement in the note which I mentioned just above: namely "The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance." Should this be removed as well, although it tends to support your positions? The fact is that we agreed not to make a direct statement that "X is the Church's official or proper name" partly on your insistence - where secondary references WERE found for that form of wording, but you then started quarrelling with them at length. We then agreed to include the two factual primary-source-based sentences, one of which you are now cavilling at. One of the reasons that these "petty" issues took SO long to resolve, was your continuous pedantic obstructiveness. For example trying to argue that "The Church" is the proper name of the Catholic Church. Xandar 19:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I think the issue is between using a universal quantifier and an existential quantifier. To wit, the universal quantifier asserts something on the order of "in all the Church's official documents and contexts, it uses 'Catholic' more frequently than it uses 'Roman Catholic'". Using an existential quantifier asserts "In certain specific documents (which are cited), the term 'Catholic' appears more frequently than 'Roman Catholic'." If we can agree to use an existential quantifier rather than the universal one, I think we can resolve this issue. --Richard (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Self-evident only for Declaration of Independence? Alas, then "to wit" would need to be limited to Shakespeare.:)

IF we are to pursue this line of thinking, then we cannot say "more frequently" because the sources do not support that it appears more frequently. We can support that in some of the most significant documents of the Catholic Church it uses Catholic Church to refer to itself. Issues of frequency would need to be supported by the source(s).

I have to agree with Xandar that the entire mediation was full of straining on wording, bending over backward to find support. It is unbelievably strange that the participants still want to fight about the agreement. It begins to reek of bad faith. --^StormRider 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

StormRider, it is really unfortunate that this discussion was brought to ARBCOM and, as a result of the mediation being referenced, the entire mediation proceedings were deleted to protect the privilege of confidentiality of mediations. I think this is truly unfortunate and would hope that the mediation proceedings are restored after the case is rejected by ARBCOM (if that hasn't already happened).

In the meantime, I cannot prove my recollection of the mediation and so I have ask you to trust my good faith attempt to remember the end phase of that process.

My recollection is that the mediation ended with an agreement that the core of the mediated agreement was based on these four points:

1. a change of the lead sentence to mention "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" in that order
2. an agreement to say nothing as to whether there was an "official name" of the Church, much less what that name might be
3. an agreement to seek support of a wider audience for a change in the title of the article
4. an agreement not to lock down every last word of the note as there were still some outstanding concerns about the specific wording

Xandar remembers Gimmetrow's last minute objections and a general feeling that he was the last holdout in achieving consensus. Gimmetrow agreed to go with the overall consensus provided that his issues could be raised after the mediated agreement was implemented. I also had some relatively minor issues with the wording but they were more stylistic as opposed to Gimmetrow's objection which was (from his POV) more substantive. Both Gimmetrow and I agreed to let the mediation move forward as long as the wording of the Note was not considered "cast in concrete" and was open to further discussion and fine-tuning after the mediation was closed.

I write this so that you and others will understand that while Gimmetrow's raising of the issue may be annoying, it is not, as you charged, "bad faith".

--Richard (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see why this continues to be discussed. It has been debated ad nauseam. Gimmetrow does not accept the wording, but has not been able to get consensus for his view. To continue raising it, putting tags on the phrase, and editing warring is simply disruptive. Please give it a rest, folks. Sunray (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You, Richard and I supported a sentence two months ago that would have resolved this. And again, I remind you for the last time, Sunray, address content. You could, for instance actually add sources to the article text. Gimmetrow 14:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

All the major documents on the Vatican website were searched, and as I recall, only five major pronouncements in the last 200 years even contained the wording "Roman Catholic Church". The statement in the note is beyond dispute. Xandar 15:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

One reason that I've never thought that the sentence in question needed a reference is that there are a total of four references in the next two supporting sentences. However, I realize that this may not be clear to folks who were not involved with the drafting of the note. Here's a simple solution to the problem: The Whitehead citation [1], which appears in the note as #7 actually supports the first sentence very well. I suggest that we move reference #7 to follow the sentence "The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents." Would this make things clearer? Sunray (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't bring up Whitehead again!!! I thought there was some consensus that he was an inappropriate source for statements of fact, just for opinion? Karanacs (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There were lengthy discussions about Whitehead as a source. It was decided to use Whitehead as a secondary source to back up the primary sources referred to in this part of the note. So Whitehead is being used that way in the note. I am only suggesting that we move that reference to a preceding sentence in that part of the note. Would you be able to accept it on that basis? Sunray (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in the article makes a claim about more than CC and RCC. If the sentence remains, I want it clearly restricted to a statement about only those two terms. Two months ago Richard and Sunray supported this sentence: "In its own documents, the Church uses the term CC more frequently than RCC." I also support that. Is that a consensus? I would also support Richard's suggestion above to restrict the statement to particular documents (such as: "In X, Y and Z, the term CC appears more frequently than RCC") but that wasn't my main concern here. Gimmetrow 18:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that any proposal suggested since the end of the mediation is better than the one agreed by consensus of editors at mediation. The editors of EWTN, a member of SIGNIS use Whitehead as their source to explain the Church's name,[2] they are all scholarly experts on the Church.[3] We did not need Whitehead in the agreed mediation but since some people can't stop challenging us, like Gimmetrow, maybe we should put him back into the article. There are no bad reviews of this source even though Gimmetrown and Soidi have tried and tried to discredit it. NancyHeise ^talk 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with an editor above that suggested that Gimmetrows continued involvement in this matter is violating WP:Disrupt. I wish someone with power could do something about it because our article is prevented from moving forward because of this disruption. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 23:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, the text in the article asserts that the term "Catholic Church" is used in the Church's documents more than any other term. Whitehead does not support that claim. Indeed, editors have consistently said that there are no sources which could support such a claim. It is the editors who continue to support an unsourced, biased claim, contrary to policies of WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view, that are disruptive to the article. Gimmetrow 00:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is cited to Catechism of the Catholic Church and the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the documents the Church calls its "Constitutions". No where in these documents does the Church use the term Roman Catholic Church to refer to itself, the sentence is thus cited and this cited sentence was agreed by consensus at mediation. Please stop being disruptive Gimmetrow, if it werent for your other types of help on Wikipedia I would think you were just a troll. I think you should consider that is what your participation on this page has become. NancyHeise ^talk 00:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, the claim in the article is about relative frequency of terms. What you just said has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the disputed claim. Please address content and avoid personal attacks. Gimmetrow 00:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The citations were agreed at mediation. I see someone has now deleted the entire mediation page. I don't see that as helpful. The citations to original documents were used as it was agreed that in some instances, original documents can be used and this sentence was one of those instances. As mentioned earlier, if you are uncomfortable with this, we can add Whitehead as another reference because he says the same thing. What I don't understand is why you are disputing a consensus agreed text over and over again when you know that the sentence is a)true, b)cited, c)other unused sources also say the same thing and d)you don't have any source that disputes the sentence. I can understand if it were a contentious statement but it isn't and there are no sources that argue your point. If you want us to eliminate the sentence, then provide a source that says otherwise. The mediation clearly validated the fact that there are no sources that say otherwise. NancyHeise ^talk 02:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. This is the same pattern of behaviour from you that led to mediation. You do not get to add a biased, unsourced statement in the article and then demand others to provide contrary "sources". You are required per WP:Verifiability to provide sources for all material you add to the article. That is your burden of evidence, and you have failed to provide that for months, exactly like you did before. Gimmetrow 03:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No Gimmetrow, a consensus of editors agreed at mediation to this sentence and sources after detailed examination of issues and sources. You are not respecting that mediation which agreed that the burden of evidence has been met. NancyHeise ^talk 03:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your invocation of consensus here is a violation of good faith and civility. The sentence I am disputing is most likely incorrect, and Sunray even admitted as much. It is clearly unsourced, as editors have acknowledged above. Gimmetrow 03:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Invocation of consensus is hardly a violation of anything. Indeed, having consensus on your side trumps having a personal bias every time. Gimmetrow, you don't agree with consensus. That is your right. But you are in a minority, and your arguments have not persuaded the community. You are being disruptive.--anietor (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The consensus at mediation was that these issues would be discussed later. It's possible that the "agreement" of editors who refuse to discuss the issue, who regularly invoke procedural arguments to stifle discussion, who obstruct improvements on even "petty" issues for months at a time, who refuse to follow Wikipedia's content policies, and who have established a long-term pattern of refusal to follow such policies, might be characterized as disruptive WP:OWNership rather than consensus. Gimmetrow 05:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

With the respect to the bad faith which is being imputed to Gimmetrow I would just like to point out an Encyclopedic source that seems to share his doubts:"Roman Catholic Church, Christian church headed by the pope, the bishop of Rome (see papacy and Peter, Saint). Its commonest title in official use is Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. “Roman Catholic” is a 19th-century British coinage and merely serves to distinguish that church from other churches that are “Catholic” (see catholic church). The term “Roman Church,” when used officially, means only the archdiocese of Rome. Roman Catholics may be simply defined as Christians in communion with the pope." (Columbia Encyclopedia on-line, accessed 29 August 2009) I'm only placing this here in response to the name calling (once again) brought against an editor who just happens to be looking for a reliable source - a good thing for Wikipedia - it doesn't mean I share the view expressed. Taam (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s I noticed Nancy Heisse has added to the reference book list the following: "THE ENTITY: FIVE CENTURIES OF SECRET VATICAN ESPIONAGE By Eric Frattini" which reviews say describes how the Vatican has operated hit squads and top secret rat-lines to allow Nazi's to escape etc and the pursuit of people they don't agree with. It seems an extremely strange addition since she normally leans heavily towards an unblemished account of Church history and also since the book has been panned in a review I read in NCR. Are you trying to tell us something Nancy about how the Church will deal with people who don't agree with you :-), but anyway I don't think it is a reliable source for what is being asserted in the relevant article section which appears now to be very loaded in an apologetics sense. Taam (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Taam, many encyclopedias are not always reliable ( especially with religion-related information ) and often contain incorrect information - such as the incorrect claim you've cited that "Roman Catholic" is of 19th century British origin. The origin of the term is much earlier than this. Afterwriting (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally disagree as I alluded to in my post. However my opinion or yours is not what matters but what reliable sources say, if there is no reliable sources to confirm something we shouldn't be asserting it. In this instance the Colombia Encyclopaedia may have been using your reliable source Whitehead who in part states: "The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language." Now even an outsider such as I knows this is nonsense, but as you say you can't always trust an encyclopaedia. Anyway my point was I thought it wrong that Gimmetrow was being marginalised and name-called when he has at least one major encyclopedic source that contradicts what the team here asserts without any reliable source. Taam (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Does a sentence without a source meet WP:Verifiability requirements?

The article currently asserts:

The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents."

This sentence has no source. It appears to be based on a google search of documents on the Vatican website. The sentence appears to claim that 'CC' is "usually the term" the Church uses in all its documents to refer to itself. However, the Church uses other terms (besides CC and RCC) to refer to itself, and some of those are used as frequently or more frequently than CC in documents I have checked, so I have disputed this sentence. I have been asking that the sentence be rephrased so that it clearly refers solely to CC and RCC, or that it be removed. Back on 5 July 2009, Richard proposed and Sunray agreed with the rephrasing

"In its own documents, the Church uses "CC" more frequently than "RCC".

That would have resolved the problem, but over two months later, nothing has changed in the article.

It has also been alleged that making the claim of all Church documents, rather than a select set, is a logical jump of original research. An editor above also proposed limiting the claim to refer only to some select set of Church documents.

This RFC asks: Does the disputed claim need a source? Does it need clarification? If it is not changed, is the disputed claim in violation of WP:Verifiability, or not? Gimmetrow 13:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Outside comments

I think Gimmetrow your separation of "insiders" from "outsiders" reveals a lot about the problems with this article. As was pointed out last year the most common name by which she refers to herself on the Vatican web site is the "The Church" (5,580) followed by "Catholic Church" (3,500 hits). The "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" that appears in so many official Church publications relating to, for example, the order of the mass doesn't feature really on the Vatican site but the numbers involved must be very large I guess. Taam (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Further information

The sentence referred to by Gimmetrow is followed by two supporting sentences. When drafted, it was a paragraph (though paragraphs were dissolved when the note was finalized). Nevertheless the sentence only makes sense if you read the following two sentences:

The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. It appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

Notes

The foregoing passage was drafted during the mediation and accepted by consensus. Attempts to modify it on this page have not achieved consensus. Alternate wordings seem moot now, since the question asked is: Does a sentence without a source meet WP:Verifiability requirements? It has been suggested that the Whitehead source at the end of the third sentence supports the statement and could easily be moved to the end of the first sentence. Again, this proposal did not gain consensus. Since most people are fine with this section of the note as is, perhaps the best option is to leave it alone. Sunray (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Sunray, is it your explicit position that a group of editors acting against Wikipedia' content policies may form not just a majority, but a consensus to disregard those content policies to defend an unsourced sentence disputed by others as factually incorrect, biased and original research? Gimmetrow 00:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that Whitehead would be a valid source for this statement (not only does his article not say this, but the article is not scholarly and is more an opinion piece). There is a lot of "consensus" around this article that ignores basic Wikipedia policies. WP:V is a central policy that should not be abandoned, and as yet editors have not provided a source that verifies this sentence. Karanacs (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is ignoring WP policies. There is a great deal of evidence to corroborate the statement. Leaving aside Whitehead, the first three references present that evidence rather well, IMO. Sunray (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny. None of those sources refer to the relative frequency of the term CC compared to all other terms the Church uses to refer to itself, and in the documents apparently referenced, not only are other terms used more frequently, but in some of those documents, 'CC' is not used at all. [fails verification]. Gimmetrow 03:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, it is not a choice between consensus and WP policy. That is a false choice, and a rather disingenuous suggestion. It is, as in most cases in WP, a choice between competing positions, whose editors all believe their positions are supported by WP policy. It is a rather hollow argument for you to say that consensus is trumping policy because consensus didn't agree with your view. Assume good faith, and assume that editors are not disregarding WP policy when they state a position. Your argument is no stronger than if Sunray, or any other consensus-supporting editor, said YOUR view is invalid because they believe your position is not supported by policy. It's really just a $50 version of saying "You're wrong because I know I'm right." That's why we value consensus. Otherwise there would be no resolution to anything. --anietor (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You have still failed to provide any valid source for the claim in the article, and have not rephrased the claim in article to avoid the dispute. You have, indeed, restored the disputed claim, although WP:V says that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Can you identify the source in the article which "unambiguously supports the information as it is presented in the article" as WP:Verifiability says it must? Gimmetrow 04:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this really a substantive request for comment, or is it, as it might seem to many, simply one editor who refuses to accept what was agreed it during the previous mediation? If the latter, might not WP:DE apply? I was not myself a party to the mediation, but it seems to me that the sourcing is sufficient, particularly given the lengthy discussion which took place earlier. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The article claims that term A, rather than term B, is used more frequently in documents, which I dispute because terms C, D and E appear to be used at least as frequently as term A. So where is the source that "unambiguously supports the information as it is presented in the article"? The only sources referred to so far are the primary source references in the sentences following this claim. Unfortunately, in these very primary documents, term C appears more frequently than term A. Please elaborate on your statement that "the sourcing is sufficient", since I really don't see how it is sufficient. Gimmetrow 20:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

First some disclosure, I am a reasonably scholarly Catholic and am familiar with the language the Church uses. I have a number of points to make on the issue.

• The terms documents use depends on context and what it is actually talking about. There is a difference between a church (a building), the Church (the organisation), a Catholic church (a building that is administered by the organisation), a catholic church (either a building or organisation that seeks to be universal), the Catholic Church (the big thing the Pope leads), the Church of Rome (the particular organisation based in Rome and overseen by the bishop of Rome (who also happens to be the Pope)), the Roman Catholic Church (as opposed to other Catholic traditions - Greek, Coptic, etc.) and a Roman Catholic church (a Catholic church that follows the Roman tradition).

  Crudely and in brief, "the Church" is a divine institution while "the Catholic Church" is a human institution that manifests "the Church".

• Blindly counting words is irrelevant, if not purely because it does not take into account what the document is actually talking about.
• The sentence in question does not claim that "Catholic Church" is the most-used term, but that it is used rather than "Roman Catholic Church".
• As this article is titled "Catholic Church" I assume is it about the Catholic Church, which does indeed refer to itself as the "Catholic Church" in official documents, as demonstrated by the supporting sentence given by Sunray that should also be included.
• The definitive definition of the Church by herself is thus: "This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."—Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, section 8 [4].

In conclusion, the statement in question is both true, and moreover is verifiable. It may however, be slightly unclear, resulting in this dispute. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 04:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Indeed, I have said before that "the relative frequency of use of various terms in a document is likely to depend on the context and purpose of the document." If the claim in the article depends on analysis of context, we don't tell the reader enough info to even verify the thought process, let alone verify that it is not WP:Original research. The sentence claims that "A, rather than B, is the most-used term". As presented, this is a purely statistical claim. The "rather than" clause doesn't restrict the main clause, so it does assert that "A is the most-used term". If a claim said that "A, rather than E, is the vowel usually chosen by contestants in game X", it would be saying that "you might think E is the most common, but it's really A". I understand that people may not read the sentence that way, but I think it clear that it can be read that way. The text hasn't been changed to remove this reading, either. Gimmetrow 11:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that after months of dispute, the disputed sentence has still not been changed to address the disputed point, nor has any source been provided in the text to support the disputed point. How can this be consistent with Wikipedia's content policies? Gimmetrow 15:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the source I just gave? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the quote from Lumen Gentium, it doesn't address the disputed point, which is a text in the article which claims that one specific term is the term "usually used" by the Church to refer to itself. Gimmetrow 19:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason it hasn't been addressed is because it's not "the disputed point." It's YOUR disputed point. Consensus, policy, etc, etc. It's all been said before. Moving on... --anietor (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a claim in the article. If you don't want to make that claim, then why have you refused for months to rephrase or remove the claim in the article? Gimmetrow 19:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Could the article itself not better be called the 'Roman Catholic Church' as all denominations of Cristianity are derived from catholisism.(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

Note that this RFC is not about the name of the article, or even the name of the entity. It is about a claim in the article which doesn't have a source attached, and which, as it is presented in the article, I consider incorrect. Gimmetrow 15:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like original research to me. Have you tried WP:ORN? Peter jackson (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Gimmetrow 01:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that after months of dispute, the disputed sentence has still not been changed to address the disputed point, nor has any source been provided in the text to support the disputed point. How can this be consistent with Wikipedia's content policies? I'm not saying this is a major point, but it is an unreferenced and arguably biased statement, and it should have been fixed one way or another months ago. If a source or other fix is not provided within 24 hours, I will tag this disputed sentence with [citation needed], and I will report to AN/I any editor who removes the tag without rectifying the problem. Gimmetrow 09:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And I note that after months of discussion, Gimmetrow has taken his disagreement with consensus, and his own interpretation of wp policy, and argued that it is a highly-disputed point and warrants a tag...because he disagrees with it. As has been noted so many times by now, just because you do not like the result of the various RFCs, mediations and ultimate consensus does not warrant a tag to the article. Under that approach, the tag would never be removed, unless you believe that there will be 100% consensus at some point. Optimistic, but unlikely. --anietor (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It can be fixed by removing or rephrasing. We have even had rephrasings that were acceptable to me, Richard and Sunray. The only way I can make sense of your position is to posit two things - you believe that consensus can reject WP:V in some instances, and that you believe there is an actual consensus to do this on this point. If you do not hold those positions, then you believe WP:V is not subject to consensus, and as a result you are required by it to provide sources for disputed statements, or remove them. Gimmetrow 18:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unverified statement

The statement in the lead that many historians share the view that the (Roman) Catholic Church is the continuation of the original Christian commmunity founded by Jesus" is still unverified. The quotation ""Some (Christian communities) had been founded by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church. ... Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome", which is presented as the source for this statement, only says that historians saw Peter as the first pope/bishop of the local Church "in" Rome, which (unless personal interpretation is added) is not what has been put in the lead. "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research" (WP:OR). (Do people who look back on Peter as the first bishop/patriarch of the local Church in Antioch, another of the Christian communities (plural) that he founded, thereby declare that the present-day Church of which the Patriarch of Antioch is part is the (i.e. one and only) continuation of the original Christian community founded by Jesus?) Soidi (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, I think has a good point. In the first situtation he brings up about Peter, would it be more appropriate to introduce the concept of belief...many Christian historians share the "belief" rather than view? Peter and Apostolic succession is foundational to Catholicism and should be treated as a belief. I acknowledge this as a sacred topic and do not wish to offend; I would look to Nancy and Xander for their thoughts. It would also be important to qualify which historians are being presented; are they apologists who are historians or are they historians with a secular background? --^StormRider 05:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Soidi and others that this sentence as written is problematic. Part of the problem is that we are trying to pack too much meaning into too few words. This would be a good place for a Note.

I've been meaning to weigh in on this question for some time now but refrained from doing so because I didn't have time to compose a cogent argument. What follows is perhaps pedantic but I figure we should lay out the argument in detail and then figure out what we can source and how to present it.

There are continuations of the original Christian community founded by Jesus and there are valid continuations of that community; "validity", of course, is in the eye of the beholder. If you leave doctrinal bias out of it, all of "mainstream" Christianity can be considered a continuation of the original Christian community because Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and Protestantism can claim the heritage of the first 1000 years of Christianity when all those churches were in communion. Okay, you have a few churches that splintered off earlier such as the Oriental Orthodox but even they have a claim to part of that heritage.

It is important to note that, from the Orthodox point of view, they did not "splinter" off from the Catholic Church. Instead, it is the "Roman Church" which splintered off from the rest of the bishops. Remember that, via apostolic succession, all the churches headed by Orthodox bishops are "valid" continuations of the original Christian community.

The argument that the Catholic Church makes about "mainstream" Christianity is that the Body of Christ on earth comprises all Christians, some of whom are sadly separated from the "one true church" by schism (Orthodox and Anglicans) and heresy (Protestants). Thus, all of "mainstream" Christianity is part of the continuation of the original Christian community. I'm not 100% sure but I would wager that, by this definition, even the Restorationists such as the LDS Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses count as part of that continuation (heretical, perhaps, but part of the continuation in the sense that anybody who accepts Jesus Christ as Savior is part of the continuation). NB: the Restorationists reject any claim to the heritage of "mainstream" Christianity because they consider it to have been corrupted shortly after the beginning of church history. They don't see themselves as a "continuation" but a "restoration" that rejects the corrupt continuation represented by mainstream Christianity.

The Catholic Church claims that it is the "valid" continuation on the basis of apostolic succession, the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Based on apostolic succession, it accepts the Orthodox Churches and Anglican Churches as "valid" continuations that are separated from communion with the Roman Pontiff, primarily due to schism. The Orthodox and Anglican churches more or less share this view with the primary difference being a different interpretation of the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Well, the Orthodox also consider the Catholic Church to be heretical but that's perhaps not very relevant to this discussion.

The Catholic Church does not see the Protestant churches as "valid" continuations because they have not preserved apostolic succession. It also sees those churches as heretical although it does work towards healing the rifts between them because, after all, they are still part of the Body of Christ.

In summary, only the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches define "valid" continuation as dependent on apostolic succession. Catholic historians would see the Catholic Church as the one "valid" continuation. Orthodox and Anglican historians would see the three "branches" as equally valid (excepting certain heresies which can always be remedied by other people coming to their senses and renouncing their heretical beliefs).

Protestants based "validity" upon fidelity to God's will as embodied in the Scripture. They clearly see themselves as part of the continuation.

Based on the above, it is hard to believe that secular historians would assert anything about who is and who is not a "valid" continuation. I would suspect that secular historians would not really discuss the concept of "continuation" at all.

What that leaves us is what historians with specific beliefs assert. I don't see how we can make any statements about what historians "agree with" unless we characterize what the religious beliefs of those historians are.

Not only do I believe that we should drop the phrase " a view shared by many historians of Christianity", I also believe we need a Note explaining how the Church's view of itself contrasts against the views of other branches of Christianity.

--Richard (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not some non-affiliated historians might express a view on "valid" continuations, without perhaps venturing to plump for "the" (one and only) valid continuation, the point is that the citation given does not in fact call the Church in question "the" continuation. The idea that it does express that view is only Original Research. Soidi (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Soidi's position seems simply nit-picking. Historians see Peter as the first Pope of the Christian Church in Rome - verified. The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church - any arguments about that? This foundation is not a belief but a historical conclusion drawn from the evidence. As for the issue of "validity", I think that is a red herring in this context. What we are talking about is the recognition by historians that the Catholic Church is that same Church founded by Peter in Rome - which is an important thing. Peter also founded the Church in Antioch, and perhaps others. But Rome is where Peter and his successors remained in continuing leadership of the Church. Xandar 01:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that the Orthodox disagree vehemently with what you wrote and have done so for over 1000 years. What you put forth (that the Bishop of Rome and the leadership of the Roman Church are the leaders of the Christian community founded by Jesus Christ) is a uniquely Catholic viewpoint. The Orthodox see their churches as also continuations of that community, perhaps even more valid continuations because they have not fallen into heresy as the Catholics have (from the perspective of the Orthodox). I'm not as familiar with the viewpoint of the Anglicans but I am under the impression that they have more of a "live and let live" attitude (three equally valid branches). In the context of these issues, it is hard to assert that the Catholic Church is "the continuation" unless you emphasize the Primacy of Simon Peter based on Matthew 16:18.

Do you then assert that the Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants are not continuations of the Christian community founded by Jesus Christ?

--Richard (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, please read WP:SYN. Your argument above is a clear example of violation of this Wikipedia policy. So is the statement at present in the article. Soidi (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Either I've got the wrong statement in question, or WP:SYN doesn't apply here as there is one source for the statement, and a syn violation requires multiple sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farsight001 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think some people are tying themselves in knots here by reading things into the wording that aren't there. The article lead currently states (struck through section currently omitted):

Through apostolic succession, the Catholic Church sees itself as the continuation of the original Church founded by Jesus Christ in his selection of Saint Peter,[22] a view shared by many historians of Christianity.

I'm not sure how this is claiming that other churches aren't "continuations" of or part of the original Church? On related issues, I'm not sure that even the Orthodox deny that the Pope is legitimate successor of Peter, or that Peter and his successors have a primacy. They only challenge the monarchial nature of the primacy. As far as Anglicans are concerned, their claim to continuance has to come through the Catholic Church. I know there are some protestant and other groups that claim separate lineage from the original church, but such claims have not been supported by academic historians. It would also be better to discuss all proposed wording or reference changes here rather than everyone having to keep checking the main page. Xandar 14:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to create a new trinity? "The Catholic Church is the Church, the Orthodox Church is the Church, the Anglican Church is the Church, yet not three churches but one Church"? The natural reading of the statement that the RCC is the Church is that others aren't, but at best parts of it.

"Historians see Peter as the first Pope of the Christian Church in Rome - verified." False. In fact even the very earliest list of bishops of Rome, given by Irenaeus, says the Roman Church was founded by Peter and Paul. Even this goes too far historically. There was no bishop of Rome till the mid 2nd century:

Clarke & Beyer, The World's Religions, Routledge, 2009, page 166: "Within a generation of this, a successor of Anicetus, now recognisable as a 'bishop' of Rome ...

... By the third century it was becoming normal for there to be in each Christian community one bishop ... the organisation of Christian communities before the third century was much more fluid ..."

Edwards, Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years, Cassell, 1997, page 52: "Polycarp ... mentioned no bishop in his letter to Rome and ... the letter to Corinth from that church does not suggest that there was a bishop in the Ignatian sense in either place. Hermas speaks of bishops and presbyters as one group and Justin mentions only a 'president' of the presbyters. It seems that the church in Rome was so conservative that it kept this New Testament pattern for its clergy for years after the development of the Ignatian-style bishop in Asia Minor ...

[page 53] ... there is definite evidence of such a bishop in Rome from the 140s."

That's just what comes immediately to hand. No doubt I can find plenty more. Peter jackson (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No doubt you could find many more. But what is the relevance? The article says "a view shared by many historians." It doesn't say shared by all historians. As it is now, that means some agree, some don't agree. Peter, you are using this talk page as a forum to discuss the actual validity of the claim. That's not what the talk page is for. Nor is it what the article is for. Your list of sources doesn't really get us anywhere, unless you are advocating the language say "shared by many historians, but not all of them." That would be redundant. "Many" doesn't mean "all". There is no need to qualify it further. --anietor (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Soidi below)

But "many" is an NPOV weasel word that tends to lend validity to the assertion. I attempted to change the text to read "shared by some but disputed by others". That edit was reverted by Farsight001 on the grounds that we don't "we don't give equal validity to minority viewpoints". I object to that reversion because the only argument that the assertion in question is the majority viewpoint would be based on the fact that Catholics are the majority (barely) of all Christians. I haven't seen any arguments to assert that the majority of historians share this view. Even if we could establish that the majority of historians share this view, it would have to be a near consensus to allow us to omit the minority viewpoint. This is the core of NPOV. We do not need to give "equal weight" to minority viewpoints but they do need to be represented and we are not doing that in the current text.

No doubt most historians share the view that the Catholic Church is part of the continuation of the original community founded by Jesus Christ. The question at hand is how historians view the Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant faiths. Anglicans and Protestants are clearly splinters from the Catholic Church. And, as I argued earlier, the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses are continuations descended from the Catholics and the Protestants even if they reject such linkage. The Orthodox have a different claim since it is much harder to establish anything other than doctrinal authority of the Roman Church over the Eastern Churches (e.g. AFAIK, Rome never appointed bishops in the East). Thus, to assert that the Catholic Church is the continuation violates NPOV.

Part of the problem may lie in differing definitions of the word "continuation". Different people may be reading this word to have different meanings. That is why I raised the issue of "valid continuations".

--Richard (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, since the Orthodox do not accept that the (R)CC is the continuation of the original Church, something that they claim for themselves, would you accept then, in line with what you have written above, a change from "the continuation" to "a continuation"? I don't suppose so. It is not the same thing.

You have made a synthesis (or have you instead merely stated your own original-research view?) by combining what is actually in the citation (about the local church in Rome) with the following, which you imply you can source: "The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church - any arguments about that? ... the Catholic Church is that same Church founded by Peter in Rome ... Rome is where Peter and his successors remained in continuing leadership of the Church." You have thus manipulated the citation so as "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated" by the source. Soidi (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Anietor, the cited source doesn't say many historians share the view that the (R)CC is the continuation of the original church. The Talk page is for, among other things, discussing the verifiability of claims such as this. Soidi (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard, since the claim in the article is not verifiably supported, there is no point in adding to it an opposing claim, verifiable or not. Soidi (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is an attempt to turn an ecclesiological issue to a historical fact. Catholic scholars of Church history will assert one thing and Orthodox scholars of Church history will assert another one. Imagine we were writing in the Cold War period. How would we have represented an issue that was disputed by pro-U.S. scholars vs. pro-Soviet scholars ? We wouldn't care which side was in the "majority". We would say "some scholars say X and others dispute Y". This is the essence of NPOV. We present the dispute and let the reader decide which side to agree with. --Richard (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the problem is an attempt to turn an ecclesiological issue to a historical fact, without presenting in the article as source even a Catholic scholar who says it is a historical fact, though such exist. The cited source doesn't say what is attributed to it. Soidi (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Soidi. Saying "a" continuation" is inaccurate in the other direction, making it sound like one of hundreds, and that the Catholic Church acknowledges such wording. Would "the principal continuation" answer your objection? That would allow for other continuations, but retain the Catholic position. Xandar 01:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Soidi's tag of the statement is improper. The sentence has four references. The National Geographic says that historians looked back for centuries and saw Peter as the first pope of the Church in Rome - the book is speaking specifically of the Roman Catholic Church in this paragraph. I do not see the need to tag a sentence because of the objections of one editor with a history on this page of making unsubstantiated claims that are not supported by either consensus or reliable sources. If there is an WP:RS that disputes the claim made in National Geographic, then we can tag the sentence or eliminate it or expose the scholarly dispute. However in this case there is no scholarly dispute - it is a fact that many scholars agree with the historical view of the Church regarding its own origins. NancyHeise ^talk 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Nancy, the claim that many historians agree that the (Roman) Catholic Church is the continuation of the Church founded by Christ - and thanks to Xandar for agreeing that there is a big difference between "the continuation" and "a continuation" - is presented as supported by only one reference, not four. And that one reference speaks of "the Church in Rome, not of the (Roman) Catholic Church. You yourself have in the past been very insistent on the distinction between the two and on interpreting "Roman Church" as meaning only the Church in Rome. So the claim that many historians hold that the (Roman) Catholic Church is the continuation of the Church founded by Christ is at present unverified. It may be a fact that many scholars agree with the (Roman) Catholic Church's view regarding its unique origins, so please cite a reliable source that says so.

Xandar, I have never disputed nor do I dispute that the (Roman) Catholic Church considers itself the (one and only) continuation of the Church founded by Christ. All I have asked for is a reliable source - one would be enough - that supports the article's claim that many historians agree with that view. I thought that was clear. Soidi (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I see now that you have at last responded to the objection (not only by me, but also by Storm Rider and Richard) by adding two further references - I hope they are valid - but you have still kept the citation that does not support the claim in the article. Soidi (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Anietor, it wasn't me who turned this into a forum. I was merely responding to Xandar. To return to the official topic here, this is what policy (WP:OR) says:

"Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research". The boldface is in the original, not my addition.

So has anyone cited any RS that directly and explicitly supports what the article says, let alone many? As I suggested earlier, you might ask WP:ORN. Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute about whether the RS supports the article text. Some of us believe it does, a couple of others don't. Personally I think in essential the reference is correct, and the precise reference argument is another of these nitpicky disputes that go into minute detail of wording of concern to certain editors but not to readers. Basically one of the principal foundations of Catholic history and theology is that it is The Church founded by Jesus on Peter. It is a Catholic essential that Jesus founded only ONE Church, not many, that Peter led that One Church, and that his successors continue to lead it from Rome. The fact that Peter founded other dioceses is immaterial, since they were all part of the One Church led from Rome. Many historians support this view. That too is a fact that needs to be expressed. We also know that many Liberal historians do not support the view because they think the foundation may have been mythical. And Orthodox and some other Christians oppose the view for a different reason, that while accepting the Primacy of Peter and his successors in Rome, they feel that Rome departed from truth, and the true Church continued in their own communion. We are getting these things mixed up.

Having gone through these "reference" disputes before, I feel that some people will reject any other reference supplied that does not word for word duplicate the exact text in the article. And that is an unreasonable objection. References do not have to be word for word. So to cut through all that, I would ask those opposing the wording to suggest here alternative wording that covers the facts. Xandar 23:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for stipulating that this is a Catholic viewpoint and that there may be a sectarian bias that governs which historians share the view and which do not. What was wrong with my edit (the one that Farsight001 reverted) that said "shared by some historians and disputed by others" with a Note to explain what the dispute is about? I'm not sure that we can easily characterize which historians share the view (certainly the Catholic historians but probably the Anglicans as well as well as some Protestants). Therefore, I think it is easier to assert that the historical perspective is driven by sectarian issues and just lay out what those issues are. (In a Note, of course!) --Richard (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The article text has been upheld by a very longstanding consensus. Soidi is the only editor to dispute it. He has a history of holding this article up from advancement based on position that is not supported by sources. I am reluctant to put this article up for peer review as long as we are being harassed by Soidi whom I consider to be a troll based on the past year's activity and ridiculous arguments he brings up. NancyHeise ^talk 02:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There you go again, Nancy... trying to shut down a discussion by calling established editors "Trolls". This constitutes a lack of civility. There are other established editors such as myself and Peter Jackson who agree with Soidi. Would you call us trolls as well? Just because you disagree with an argument doesn't make it ridiculous. I consider some of your positions to be wrong and some of your arguments to be specious but I don't call you a troll. Please reciprocate and keep the discourse civil. --Richard (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's have look at the exact words used. (As an aside, I could find only one of the three in the edit text, so I had to copy them from the visible text instead.)

Derrett, p. 480, quote: "... the activities of Jesus, and of Paul of Tarsus, cannot be understood without a knowledge of the peculiar world in which they operated. Some believe that Christianity was not founded by Jesus, called Christ, but rather by Peter with such of his associates who were apostles after Jesus's anastasis, which is usually called 'resurrection'. The faith of Peter, and the subsequent faith of Paul, are the rocks upon which the early churches were founded. Their psychosociological position at any rate must be known if one is to understand their proceedings. Others, this writer included, take Jesus as the inspiring force of the church."

This doesn't offer the remotest support for the statement in the article. But at least readers can see that if they bother to follow the link to the bottom of the page.

Wilken, p. 281, quote: "Some (Christian communities) had been founded by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church. ... Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome"

It seems to me that this could perfectly well mean the historians who were writing when the position was institutionalized, not present-day ones.

Norman, p. 11, p. 14, quote: "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime.", "The apostolate was established in Rome, the world's capital when the church was inaugurated; it was there that the universality of the Christian teaching most obviously took its central directive—it was the bishops of Rome who very early on began to receive requests for adjudication on disputed points from other bishops."

The first sentence needs context. Does "The Church" mean the Catholic Church? The second sentence again doesn't have much to do with what the article says.

Summary: the sources cited show at most that one historian (Norman) holds this view, and that's only if the context supports that interpretation. (I'm assuming there's nothing in the context for the Wilken quote that would make clear that it refers to the present day.)

Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter, we know they are talking about the Roman Catholic Church because:

• Derrett's book is discussing religion in the Roman Empire and the Christian Church in Rome.
• Wilkins book is making reference to historians who looked back and saw Peter as the first pope of the Church in Rome - do you know of any other institution in the world that claims Peter as their first pope? As far as I know, no other institution uses the term "pope" except for the Catholic Church.
• Edward Norman's book is entitled The Roman Catholic Church, an Illustrated History so I am pretty sure he is talking about the subject of the article : ) NancyHeise ^talk 21:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

But the quote you have provided from Norman is taken out of context and clearly does not mean what you think it means. See my comments below under "getting at the point". Harmakheru (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over the tag. Soidi, I support the point you are making; however, since it is clear that the owners of the article will not allow the tag to remain. Further edit warring over the tag may lead to protection of the page and/or blocking of the editors involved.

If this issue cannot be resolved via discussion on this Talk page, the next step in the dispute resolution process is an RFC followed by possible mediation.

--Richard (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought a tag was supposed to remain until the question raised - at least if supported by more than one editor - had been settled on the Talk page; but since you ask me to let the Owners of the Article have their way, I will. I have done so on similar matters already. Soidi (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

My issue is that the phrase takes a doctrinal position and places it in the secular arena of historical fact. "Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the church founded by Jesus Christ" is a workable phrase. Nancy, would you accept something like this? Richard's alternative is also good. I is fundamental that religion articles maintain a strict adherence to clarifying beliefs and not presenting them as facts. I do think this goes too far. --^StormRider 16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not a case of a doctrinal position being placed in a secular arena. The issue is the fact that many historians agree with the Church's belief that it is the continuation of the original Church founded by Jesus, the one where Peter was established as the first Pope. The sources clearly state this. The following source is from the National Geographic book Geography of Religion. The quote is written by Professor of History of Christianity at University of Virginia Robert Louis Wilken. The book is further edited by Susan Tyler Hitchcock and John Esposito. Esposito is a professor of Religion at Georgetown University and Hitchcock is a respected professor and author of many books on history, culture and nature. Thus, the following quote is not just the work of one scholar, in addition, the quote mentions that historians, not historian, looked back throughout history and saw Peter as the first pope of the Church of Rome. The Church is also known as Roman Catholic Church and has never been affiliated with any other organization in its 2000 year history - here's the quote:

• Wilken, p. 281, quote: "Some (Christian communities) had been founded by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church. ... Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome"

In addition, I have added other authors to support National Geographic's position, a position that has less to do with theology and more to do with anthropology and recorded history. I am not in favor of eliminating the fact illuminated in the lead regarding an undisputed fact. No one has produced a source that says that all historians disagree with the Church regarding this issue. I have produced four sources that support the sentence. One of those, (Derrett), is a most respected scholarly series [5] dealing with history of Rome. The quote specifically states that "others" the author included take Jesus to be the inspiring force of the Church. He is contrasting the expressed position of other scholars who do not believe Jesus founded the Church. The author is supporting the opposite position and telling us that other scholars also support it. Thus - many historians agree with that the Church was founded by Jesus and that it is the continuation of the original Roman Church with Peter as the first pope - the first of many - the many that only exist in the Catholic Church. NancyHeise ^talk 19:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have separated the term Apostolic succession from the sentence in question. It now reads "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter,[22] a view shared by many historians of Christianity.[23][24][25] Apostolic succession is the Church belief that its bishops are the valid, consecrated successors of the orginal Apostles. These have defined Church doctrines through various ecumenical councils, following the example set by the first Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem.[26]" NancyHeise ^talk 19:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is debatable whether or not apostolic succession can not be part of the original article text since that part of the sentence is cited to Lumen Gentium. The second part stating historians agreement is cited to the historians who effectively state this belief in different words. However, since I am being harassed by Soidi with the help of Richard - again. I am once again kow tow ing. I do not believe it is productive for this page to be harassed by Soidi who argues points that are not points of argument by scholars. Soidi produces no sources and then Richard thinks he is helping us be NPOV by supporting Soidi. You are not helping us Richard, you are calling us "owners" - when in fact - you are playing this part - to the detriment of the article. I do not appreciate your efforts and I would like some help from an admin who is interested in really helping, not taking the side of the page troll. NancyHeise ^talk 19:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you have previously been asked to refrain from calling editors trolls just because you disagree with their points. Consider this a second warning. Just because someone disagrees with you on many points does not make him a troll. Please concentrate on content and not editors. Karanacs (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, looking at the talk page history for the past year, it is obvious to me that Soidi fits the Wikipedia definition of a troll. I can say that if the shoe fits. I am just sorry that I do not have the help I need from admins who are supposed to be helping legitimate editors improve pages, not succomb to trolls. If Soidi had sources to support his positions, if he had consensus over the past year, I would not call him a troll but since he repeatedly argues with us over issues that are clearly supported by many sources - I would call this disrupting the page - obstructing progress. I am sorry that you do not agree. Maybe you would prefer a different set of editors on the page? Ones that create content based on WP:OR and ignore the best sources? NancyHeise ^talk 19:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

getting at the point

Nancy, it is great to work with you again; it has been a while since we have had the opportunity to work. Forgive me, if I remain..."thick" when it comes to this issue. My concern revolves around the concept of neutrality. If I am an Eastern Orthodox, the statement is offensive. If I was a Southern Baptist, I would likewise be offended. As I LDS, it is offensive because it takes a belief, the belief that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus, and makes it a historical fact. Unfortunately, I do not have the references you use at hand and thus I am unable to review the context of the statements. However, I would be highly suspect of any historian making such a bold statement; it is apologetic in nature and it is based strictly on faith or belief. It is like a historian, who is LDS, stating that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the actual restoration of the true church of Jesus to the earth. I know immediately that this historian is speaking from his/her faith and not from a historical position of fact. These types of statements are impossible to prove from a historical position. Again, as I said above, I know that this is sacred history for the Catholic Church and I seek to be respectful of that sacredness. Please do not take offense at my position.

Also, the use of the term "many"; is that one or four historians or is it the majority of historians? Nancy, do you think that most historians would support this statement? Can you understand how other churches might disagree with the statements of these individuals? Can you see how stating the beliefs of the Catholic Church is more neutral?--^StormRider 19:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I have many LDS friends as I go to Utah quite frequently. I love them and I believe they are true Christians. However, I still have to create a page that reflects what the sources support. The article text states: "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter,[22] a view shared by many historians of Christianity.[23][24][25]" These historians are mentioned in the references. "many" is not a set figure but National Geographic and Derrett imply that many historians agree with this view of history, neither source mentions whether or not it is due to the historians personal beliefs or not and neither do we. NancyHeise ^talk 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I was wrong in my earlier post - this is less a matter of references than of content. In my view the Wilken and Norman references clearly cover the language used in the article. But this is not really what is being argued. What is being argued is the wording - that "many" historians agree with the Catholic Church that it is the continuation of the Church founded by Jesus on Peter. To address Stormrider's point, "many" is used to mean "more than a few". If a majority was claimed, the word used would be "most". Just to say "historians" without a qualifier would imply all historians. There is a limited number of words that can be used here. "Many" is the most apt.

Some people want reference to the historians to be removed - but that would be wrong - since this is an important fact. It is not just a subjective "belief" that the Church dates back to Peter, it is a fact backed (as far as any historical fact can be supported) by reliable documentary and archaeological evidence.

So the dispute as I see it boils down to the words "the continuation", which some claim are offensive. Personally I don't see how it is offensive to say that the Church itself and "many" historians believe this. It isn't as if the article was stating "It is an undeniable fact that the Catholic Church is the one and only continuation of the Church founded by Jesus." Soidi has suggested changing "The continuation" to "a continuation". However to do this, we would have to have two sentences, one for the Church's view "the continuation" and one for historians, which could be amended to "a continuation". This however would be an ugly solution. I have suggested a change to "the principal continuation" which would seem to answer all valid points in that it doesn't exclude other churches. Comments? Xandar 21:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote from Edward Norman, The Roman Catholic Church, an Illustrated History, when read in context, does NOT constitute historical support for the claim that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. The entire section in which this quote appears is prefaced with: "The book begins with a few paragraphs on how Catholics understand the essentials of their faith." Norman's statement that "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime" is not offered as a statement of historical fact but as a statement of what the Catholic Church believes about itself. The same paragraph concludes, "the eternity to which men and women are called is infinite--and the judgment that follows is certain." If the statement about Jesus founding the Church is to be considered a historical judgment, then this statement must be as well; they stand or fall together. Harmakheru (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote from Derrett also does not provide much support, if any. It is one thing to assert, as Derrett does, that "Christianity" as a religious movement was founded by Jesus in the sense that he was its "inspiring force"; it is quite another thing to claim that Jesus founded the Catholic Church as an institution, since the Catholic church was (and is) only one of many manifestations of the "Christianity" which Jesus inspired. It should also be noted that Derrett goes on to say that Jesus "repudiated the oligarchical or monarchical power-structures known elsewhere which, before long, began to appear in the church itself" (p. 544), and that "Jesus had no conception of an official priesthood ... It was virtually from the pagan world ... that the office of priest as we know it appeared" (p. 545). Given that, it really is quite a stretch to cite Derrett as a source for the claim that the Catholic Church of today was founded by Jesus, which is what the present text seems to imply. Harmakheru (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And Nancy hasn't answered my point. Wilken says when the post was institutionalized, historians looked back &c. When was the post institutionalized? Centuries ago. So the statement, without more context, doesn't say anything about present-day historians. Furthermore, saying Peter was the first Pope isn't the same as saying the Catholic Church is the church. It would be perfectly consistent to say that the Pope is the true head of the church but the church is divided and RCC is only part of it. I don't know whether anyone actually does say that, but you can't simply assume things like that. Peter jackson (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I welcome the involvement of Harmakheru and Peter jackson in this discussion. I'm not 100% convinced by Peter jackson's argument re Wilken. It seems reasonable to assume that "some", yea even "many" contemporary historians still hold the view described by Wilken. To me, the question isn't whether "many" historians share this view; the question is whether the statement is misleading due to its vagueness. Is it Catholic historians, Christian historians, secular historians or is the historian's religion irrelevant?

Nancy has repeatedly cited National Geographic as a source supporting the assertion in question. She indicated that there were too many historians listed in that source for her to type in all their names. Has anyone else looked at this source? Nancy, can you provide a direct quote from National Geographic so that we can evaluate the strength of the support for the assertion in question?

--Richard (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately contributions from Peter jackson and Harmakheru still seem to be focussed on negatively trying to pick tiny holes in the references, and not on positive engagement in finding the best wording. I'm not interested in getting back into the game we spent much of last year on, of constantly being asked for new references in order for other editors to try to pick new quibbles with them, or the person who wrote them, or the publisher, or their religion... The point is the content of the article. This is not the page for arguing doctrinal points on whether or not they think the Church founded by Peter in Rome and the Church that all reputable scholars agree has been based there ever since, is the same church, or some sort of different church, or that the "true" church split away from it x00 years ago... I have suggested a wording that answers the point about the text POSSIBLY SEEMING to imply that the Catholic Church is the only continuation from the original Church. No response to that has been forthcoming. If that wording is not acceptable, why not? And if not, what is their proposed wording and how do they reference it? Xandar 22:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a question of "picking tiny holes" in the references; it is a question of whether the references actually back up the statement they are supposedly supporting. And pretty clearly, if you read those references in their original context, at least two of them do not--which means it would be unscholarly and even dishonest to continue pretending that they do. You are right that this is not the place to argue doctrinal points. In fact, I think that is precisely the objection to the language as it now stands: It looks very much like an attempt to import a confessional stance into Wikipedia under the guise of objective scholarship, which if successful could have dire consequences further down the line. I can easily imagine some future college student claiming in a paper that as a matter of objective historical fact the Catholic Church is indeed the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ, and citing the Wikipedia article on the Catholic Church as proof: "See, it says right here that historians agree the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus." This is why it is so very important to be careful about the language that is used in such matters, and to make it both as clear and as dispassionate as possible.

As for better wording, that's simple: Just take out part about the historians. "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter." Period. In fact, you could legitimately make the statement even stronger: "The Church believes itself to be the sole fully legitimate heir of the Christian community ...", citing this to Pope Pius XII and Vatican II, with a footnote quoting the precise language from Lumen Gentium about how the Church founded by Jesus Christ and entrusted to Simon Peter "subsists" in the Catholic Church. I would have no objection to that whatever; on the contrary, I would welcome it, because it is a more accurate statement of the Church's official position. But as it stands now, the language strikes me (and apparently others as well) as an effort to suggest that what is actually a confessional statement should nevertheless be considered objectively true because it is supported by "many historians"--a gambit which moves the discussion out of the realm of objective scholarship and into the realm of apologetics. Harmakheru (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect to Nancy's third source (Wilken's article in the National Geographic Geography of Religion), it is no better than the other two. Again, context is the key. In the Foreword the editors explicitly state that the book was intended as an "antidote" to "religious warfare", that they "invite you to discover the realms where God lives", and that each chapter includes "a major essay by a member of the Board of Advisers" which "reveals a personal view" of the faith they practice. Wilken's personal essay begins, "The rhythm of my life as a Christian ...", and from what follows it seems nearly certain that he is a Roman Catholic. The article itself does indeed say, as Nancy claims, that some Christian communities were founded "by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church" (although the footnote leaves out the part that explicitly locates these communities "in Judaea", and it does not indicate the omission by ellipsis or otherwise, thereby potentially leaving the reader with a wrong impression of what the author actually wrote). But then the same article also states as fact that "Many miracles took place on or near the Sea of Galilee. Jesus walked on the surface of the water." (p. 274) It also states as fact that "He was the promised Messiah ..." (p. 276) Again, taking context into account, it looks very much as if Wilken is not writing as a secular scholar of religious history but as a Catholic telling the Christian story from a confessional perspective. Harmakheru (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not willing to play the game where one side keeps demanding new references and then rejecting them time after time for various reasons. That is endless. I don't think most of the criticisms made of the references already supplied are very sound. Comments on WIlken above veer into not wanting to accept any historian as a source who is not an avowed and registered atheist. Nancy challenged people to come up with alternative references, but they didn't. On the substantive issue, removing reference to the historians is denying the fact that historians do acknowledge that the Catholic church today is direct continuation of the same community founded apostolically in the 1st century. Stating that is reporting an important fact, not importing confessional stances into Wikipedia. We cannot censor that information. The concern raised has been not that the Catholic Church is not a continuation of the original Church, but over wording that may suggests that it is the sole continuation. I have put forward proposed wording which I believe covers that. And I am sure editors are open to wording suggestions that are verifiable and which present all the facts, including the historical background of the Church in an unambiguous manner. Xandar 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the proposed references are being rejected because they don't support the claim in question. In fact, if references are proposed again and again in support of a questionable statement and keep getting shot down, perhaps that's an indication that there's something wrong with the statement itself and it ought to be deleted. As for the "avowed and registered atheist" comment, I agree it is possible for people of faith (Catholic/Christian or otherwise) to be good historians. But if you want to cite them AS historians then they need to be writing as historians, and not as representatives of their confessional stance. Do you seriously believe that when Wilken states without qualification that Jesus was "the promised Messiah", or that he walked on the waters of the Sea of Galilee, he is writing as an objective historian? Of course not--he is writing as a Christian telling the Christian story. But if he's not writing as a historian, then you can't cite him AS a historian when he says it. Otherwise, I could probably dig up some respectable historians and scholars who, when writing confessionally, say some very nasty things about the Catholic Church. Just imagine: "Many historians believe that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon predicted in the Bible by the Apostle John." Wouldn't that be fun? Harmakheru (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:reliable source examples suggests we use scholarly works with good reviews written by professors who are experts in their fields and published by University presses. Never does Wikipedia ask us to consider the authors religious views. We just look at book reviews in scholarly journals. Can you give us some bad reviews for the books we have used to support article text? NancyHeise ^talk 02:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

National Geographic is not a university press. And it is not up to me to find "bad reviews" to debunk your citations; it is up to you to find good reviews that bolster their credibility. But in fact, as far as I can tell, the National Geographic book has no reviews at all. It seems to have been totally ignored by the academic community--which is something the Wikipedia guidelines explicitly warn about as evidence that a book may not be worth taking seriously. Harmakheru (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Towards a resolution

Xandar wrote "It isn't as if the article was stating "It is an undeniable fact that the Catholic Church is the one and only continuation of the Church founded by Jesus." Soidi has suggested changing "The continuation" to "a continuation". However to do this, we would have to have two sentences, one for the Church's view "the continuation" and one for historians, which could be amended to "a continuation". This however would be an ugly solution. I have suggested a change to "the principal continuation" which would seem to answer all valid points in that it doesn't exclude other churches. Comments?"

Actually, although it may be a bit clumsy, this might be the path to a resolution.

The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter.[22] Historians generally accept the Catholic Church as the continuation of the Roman Church founded by Saint Peter, one of the five patriarchates of the early Christian church.

I think this approach help address the problem by separating what the Church believes from what historians believe and without getting into the tarpit of "the continuation" vs. "a continuation". Both sentences should be easily sourceable. I don't think anybody disputes that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the original Roman Church. The dispute is about whether or not the Roman Church constitutes the entire continuation or just a continuation of one of the patriarchates. We have been ignoring Xandar's proposed solution when it, in fact, neatly sidesteps the knotty problem that we've been grappling with.

--Richard (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is a lack of specificity in the terminology. "Continuation" is extremely vague--do we mean continuity in time, continuity of authority, continuity of structure, continuity of doctrine, continuity of membership? (The Soviet Union was in some sense a "continuation" of Czarist Russia, but many people would vehemently object to describing it as such without further qualification.) Changing this to "the principal continuation" doesn't help much, for the same reasons: "principal" in what sense? Unless this is carefully qualified, it risks the ire of, say, the Eastern Orthodox, who consider themselves--not Rome--to be "the principal continuation" of the apostolic Church, for reasons which seem at least as valid to them as the reasons offered by Roman Catholics for their side. And of course Protestants have their views on the subject as well.

There is also a problem with any formulation describing the Roman Church as "founded by Saint Peter"; Peter was almost certainly martyred at Rome, as was Paul, but there were Christians in Rome long before either of them ever set foot there, so they did not "found" the Church in the usual sense of the term. And any mention of the five patriarchates immediately raises all sorts of issues: In the early centuries there was no patriarchate at all in either Constantinople or Jerusalem, and Antioch's claim to apostolic foundations is at least as strong as Rome's. Harmakheru (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Harmakheru, comments above mirror one side of the debate on the origins of the Church, that espoused by Eamon Duffy. I am not sure if other scholars agree with Duffy but we put his side in the article. We also have several scholars noted for the other side. We have provided both POVs. The point made in the lead just clarifies for Reader that the Church position is also one held by many historians. It never says it is the one and only continuation and I think much fuss is being made over this for no reason. Where are the sources to support the opposers of the article text? What scholar says that no historians agree with the Church's view? Please provide links to WP:RS sources so we can see what you are looking at to form your opinions. NancyHeise ^talk 01:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You've got it exactly backwards. No one needs to provide a single source to support opposition to the current text; it is incumbent on those who defend the text to provide credible sources in its support, or it should be deleted. You can't just toss an unsupported claim into the text and insist that it must remain there until someone can prove it wrong; if you want the text in there at all, you have to show that it is RIGHT, by providing appropriate supporting citations. Right now the text in question has three citations, none of which properly support it. If those citations were to be deleted, as they ought to be, then the current text is left without any support at all, and should be deleted as well. And even if all three citations are allowed to stand, the statement about "many historians" would still be in violation because it constitutes original research. As WP:RS itself says, "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. ... The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor." The same principle holds for claims of "many". What you need is not three (questionable) sources that say X, but a reputable source which says, "many historians believe X". None of your sources, even if they were otherwise acceptable, actually say that. Harmakheru (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard, your proposed reword is unsupportable with any reference. What source says what historians generally agree with? Our text is more correct and true to the sources. It does not make a judgement on whether most or some historians agree which is unmeasurable. The National Geographic book says "once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and saw Peter as the first pope of the Church of Rome". Contrary to Peter Jackson's faulty analysis, historians looked back for centuries and saw Peter as the first pope - this is not something we really need to debate do we? This is not a point of contention between historians, its just a fact. I think Peter Jackson needs to provide some sources if he is going to attempt to divert the discussion along those lines. I would appreciate your help Richard. NancyHeise ^talk 02:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The National Geographic book is not a history book; it is a collection of confessional statements made, in many cases, with virtually no reference to normal standards of historiography. The same author who writes what you quote above also states AS FACT that Jesus walked on the Sea of Galilee and was the promised Messiah. Such statements are not the work of a historian writing AS a historian, and should not be cited as such. Harmakheru (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Harmakheru, the article text does not use the words "most" or "all", it uses the word "many" supported by National Geographic that says "Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and saw Peter as the first pope of the Church of Rome." This source, which is really all I need is additionally supported by two modern scholars who agree with the Church position. We just threw them in there as examples to illustrate what National Geographic is saying. Your argument is not sourced at all. How can you ask us to eliminate such concrete sourcing to bow to your unsourced personal opinions? NancyHeise ^talk 02:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

See above--the National Geographic article is not a valid source. Neither are the other two you use, for reasons I have already explained. You cannot use confessional statements as if they were history. And I don't need a "source" to point out that your sources do not say what you claim they are saying, or that when read in context they fail the standard of objective scholarship. You are the one making the claim; the burden of proof rests on you, not on your opponents. Harmakheru (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you need to provide a source to support your personal decision to berate these sources. We can't rely on a Wikipedia editor's personal opinion of a source, we need to see what scholars and scholarly journals think before we toss them. According to WP:RS these sources satisfy the highest qualifications of Wikipedia policy. National Geographic book is an encyclopedia, a peer reviewed scholalry work collection of different scholars on the subject of Religion. Edward Norman is famous historian at the world's most respected university for history (Oxford), his book is a university press. Derrett is writing in a highly respected scholarly series called Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. This constitutes a range of scholarship. NancyHeise ^talk 02:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The National Geographic book is not an "encyclopedia"; it is a coffee-table book. If you will check Google Scholar you will find exactly three "citations" of it, none of them significant. It is not a "peer-reviewed scholarly work"; it is a collection of essays by practitioners of various confessional orientations, including Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, and a rabbi. The primary editor, Susan Tyler Hitchcock, shows up on Google Scholar as an author of poetry books for children and a book on gathering wildflowers. The secondary editor, John L. Esposito, has an extensive publication list but his expertise is in Islam, not Christianity. The only other member of the "Board of Advisers" who might provide some "peer review" of an article on Christianity is Laurie Cozad, but according to Google Scholar she only has a handful of publications and they are on topics like witchcraft, snake worship, and demonology. That leaves Wilken himself, who is a genuine scholar with genuine expertise in Christianity--but, again, he is clearly not writing in this case AS a scholar according to scholarly standards, but as a member of a particular religious confession expressing his own confessional beliefs. Again, if you are going to accept Wilken's statements about the papacy as fact just because he says so, then you must equally accept as fact his claim that Jesus walked on water and was the promised Messiah. These are not the sort of statements one finds in scholarly publications; they are confessional claims, not historical ones, and have no place in Wikipedia.

The other two sources are fine as sources, but they don't say what you want them to say. The Norman book explicitly says that his opening paragraphs, from which you quote the statement that "the Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime", are "how Catholics understand the essentials of their faith"--which clearly distinguishes it as a confessional statement rather than a historical one. And the Derrett article, which is quite excellent, does not say that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, but rather that Jesus was "the inspiring force" of "the church" (lowercase "c") which he identifies with "Christianity" in general, not with Catholicism--and he later states quite clearly that Jesus knew nothing of any Christian priesthood and was opposed in principle to the kind of hierarchy which is fundamental to the Catholic Church, so he clearly cannot believe that the Catholic Church as presently constituted was founded by Jesus.

So on close examination, all three of the sources you offer in support of your claim simply evaporate. That leaves you with nothing but a bare, unsourced assertion--which, under Wikipedia rules, must be either re-sourced or deleted. Harmakheru (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, it would help if you could keep up to date on the points people make. You seem to be always at least one step behind. You replied to my first point about Wilken only after I repeated it and added a second, to which you haven't replied. Similarly, your recent replies continue to ignore points made by others. Peter jackson (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To hammer home a previous point about the National Geographic book that Nancy is touting as "a peer reviewed scholarly work", the book's article on Buddhism states as fact that on the day of the Buddha's birth, "two celestial figures appeared from out of the clouds, showering [the Buddha's mother] with water and lotus blossoms." (p. 136) Later on, describing the day of the Buddha's death, it states as fact that "The trees burst into unseasonable bloom and heavenly song filled the sky." (p. 146) Can I add these statements to the article on Buddhism as objective historical facts, and justify them by citing the National Geographic book? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the book is to be accepted as peer reviewed scholarship supporting the objective truth of confessional Catholic positions, then it must also be accepted as scholarly support for the objective truth of confessional Buddhist positions. Harmakheru (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is silly. You are confusing sections of a work describing the beliefs of a religion - which most such works do, with sections looking at the historiography of that religion. Xandar 12:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem, but I am not the one who is confused about it. Throughout the National Geographic book being cited, the authors themselves intermix confessional statements and historiography, without distinction, even in the same paragraph, which makes it a matter of individual judgment as to when they are doing the one or the other. Nancy wants to pull a couple of sentences out of the middle of this mishmash, declare that in these particular sentences the author is in "historian" mode, and then use them to back up a controversial confessional claim. In the process she misquotes one of the statements, thereby making it say more than the author intended, and misapplies the rest of it to support a claim it doesn't make. That isn't the way to do serious scholarship. Harmakheru (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

On Richard's proposed wording: "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter.[22] Historians generally accept the Catholic Church as the continuation of the Roman Church founded by Saint Peter, one of the five patriarchates of the early Christian church." I think it could, with some amendment, form a basis for progress, remembering that we are discussing the lead, where things must be kept short and clear. This will be a far more productive avenue to go down than arguing forever about whether we like a particular book or not. Xandar 12:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC) To make it more precise and short, what about: "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Church founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter.[22] Most historians accept that the Catholic Church is a continuation of the original Christian community founded in Rome by Saints Peter and Paul." Xandar 12:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) "Most historians" is original research unless you can come up with a proper source that explicitly says "most historians" accept this. At the moment you don't have one. (2) The "original Christian community" in Rome was not founded by Peter and Paul, since it already existed before either of them arrived there. Harmakheru (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the phrase "most historians" should be resolvable by switching to something like "many historians". The issue here is to find a suitable source. The connection between the current Catholic Church and the original Christian Church in Rome doesn't seem to be much in dispute.

As for "original Christian community founded in Rome by Saints Peter and Paul", we could perhaps find a mutually agreed upon formulation such as "the original Christian community in Rome of which the apostle Peter served as the first bishop" ("first" bishop may be debatable; to assert that Peter was the "first" bishop is to assert that the Christian community in Rome had no bishops prior to Peter; I'm unclear if anybody challenges this assertion; )

It may help if we list the "landmines" that we are trying to step around:

1. The Christian community (Church) of which all Christianity is a continuation was not founded in Rome but more likely in Palestine/Asia Minor (Jerusalem, Ephesus, etc.)
2. The Christian community in Rome was not founded by Peter and/or Paul (in the sense that there were Christians in Rome before Peter and Paul got there)
3. However, in Against Heresies written 175-185, Irenaeus refers to the Catholic Church as "the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul" (see our article on Saint Peter)
4. Peter is generally recognized as having become the leader of the church in Rome (the "bishop" if you will although there don't seem to be any contemporary sources that refer to him as such, see Bishop)
5. The system of metropolitans is first mentioned at the Council of Nicaea recognizing the rights of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (and probably Antioch). Eventually, Jerusalem and Constantinople are added to form the Pentarchy by the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451).
6. The term Patriarchate does not come into use until the time of Emperor Justinian in the 6th century
7. So, mentioning the church of Rome as one of the pentarchies is accurate but a bit anachronistic

In summary, there seems to be no problem asserting that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the Church of Rome and few problems asserting that Peter was the first bishop of that Church (and thus retrospectively, the first Pope). However, there is an issue of accuracy if we assert that the Christian community in Rome was founded by Peter and Paul (per Catholic tradition). There is also a problem if we assert or imply that it is the sole continuation of the Church founded by Jesus Christ (Catholic doctrine).

--Richard (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard, for your very thoughtful analysis. Unfortunately, there are still some difficulties with the approach you suggest: (1) "Many historians" is still original research unless, as you say, you can find a proper source for the statement. Given the vagueness of the claim (including the lack of precision as to what is meant by "continuation"), this may be difficult to the point of impossibility. (2) Any statement about the "original Christian Church in Rome" is problematic because almost nothing is known about that church's membership, structure, leadership, doctrine, or eventual fate, much less its continuity (or lack thereof) with what later became the Catholic Church. A great deal of scholarly ink has been spilled trying to tease out the implications of a bare handful of statements in first century documents, but there just isn't enough to construct anything like a coherent history. (3) It is not "generally recognized" that Peter "became the leader of the church in Rome". This is, of course, the traditional confessional position of the Catholic Church, but there is very little actual history to support it, and many scholars--including eminent Catholic ones--flatly reject it. For example:

As for Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what he did there before he was martyred. Certainly he was not the original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense). There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church--a claim not made till the third century. Most likely he did not spend any major time at Rome before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that Peter came to the capital." (Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Christianity (Paulist Press, 1983).

It would probably be less objectionable historically to say that the Catholic Church is institutionally continuous with the Church at Rome which produced the Epistle of Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, but that's not going to get a lot of the people here what they want out of this. One could perhaps plausibly claim that the Catholic Church is institutionally continuous with at least some portion of the Christian community at Rome among which Simon Peter ministered in the months or years just prior to his martyrdom (although judging from Clement's letter it seems likely that it was some other portion of that same community which ultimately caused the deaths of both Peter and Paul) but I suspect that's not going to fly, either.

This is part of the reason I have suggested striking the whole reference to "many historians" in this section. It introduces issues into the discussion which are almost insolubly difficult to resolve without extensive qualification, and it does so for no good reason. The paragraph makes perfect sense and achieves its proper purposes without dragging the historians into it. Why not just leave them out and save everybody a lot of trouble and confusion? Harmakheru (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow... that's why I love Wikipedia. I'm always learning new things... some of it is even true... ;-)

Seriously... we have already tried deleting the bit about "a view shared by many historians" but it was restored and since I try really hard not to edit war, I let it go. Perhaps Xandar and NancyHeise will reconsider after reading your comment above. I am fine with deleting the phrase in question.

--Richard (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I just add a remark specifically addressed to Nancy, since she seems very keen on FAC? I've been told (Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 18#Decertification?) that FAR seems to be almost entirely concerned with citations. If that's true, and maybe even if it isn't, doesn't it seem likely that they'd be very strict about that one thing? And that FAC would be just as strict? Peter jackson (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Eliminating the historical view is not on. If that is what some people are after, they are not going to get anywhere, since that is not a legitimate object. Harmakheru may quote the odd fringe historian who tries to suggest that Peter founded some different and mythical church, which somehow vanished into thin air within the 1st century. But such is mere unsupported speculation. Cavilling at the word "many" is another profitless exercise. The word like "some" and "most" is used extensively across Wikipedia because it is useful. What are we supposed to substitute it with? 489? 67% These are impossible figures to specify and if an attempt were made it would be challenged in another endless cycle of argument. What we need to see from objectors is some sign of referenced, constructive suggestion for wording that doesn't rely on censoring the facts. Xandar 21:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

First, you might try actually reading what people write and responding to it, instead of distorting it into straw-man arguments you can knock down more easily.

Second, the position you are championing as "the historical view" and "the facts" is no such thing, and your determination to force it on everyone else, come hell or high water, looks very much like an attempt to impose Catholic apologetic baggage where it has no business being.

Third, if you think Raymond Brown and John Meier are "odd fringe historians" then by that very fact you have demonstrated that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You and Nancy are basing your "historical view" primarily on an out-of-context quotation from a National Geographic coffee-table book for which Google Scholar reports only three citations, none of them significant. Try googling Brown and Meier and see what happens. Their book on Antioch and Rome, from which I quoted, has 47 citations; Brown's book on the Gospel of John has over 200; his book on New Testament Christology is also over 200; and so forth. Similarly, Meier's biography of Jesus has 161; his book Rethinking the Historical Jesus has 95; and so forth. You are dismissing as "fringers" some of the heaviest hitters in the field.

Another mainstream scholar who works in the same area is Oscar Cullmann. Google Scholar gives at least 37 citations for his book on St. Peter, and it is considered one of the major works in the field. (This is confirmed by one of the books that cites Cullmann--"What is Catholicism", published by Our Sunday Visitor, with a foreword by Cardinal Avery Dulles--which begins one paragraph by saying, "Since Cullmann ..." in the same way a book on physics might say, "Since Einstein ...") Here is what Cullmann has to say on the subject:

In the New Testament [Jerusalem] is the only church of which we hear that Peter stood at its head. Of other episcopates of Peter we know nothing certain. Concerning Antioch, indeed ... there is a tradition, first appearing in the course of the second century, according to which Peter was its bishop. The assertion that he was Bishop of Rome we first find at a much later time. From the second half of the second century we do possess texts that mention the apostolic foundation of Rome, and at this time, which is indeed rather late, this foundation is traced back to Peter and Paul, an assertion that cannot be supported historically. Even here, however, nothing is said as yet of an episcopal office of Peter.

So now we have three respected mainstream historians--Brown, Meier, and Cullmann--who are seriously at odds with your alleged "historical view"; and certainly for anyone who knows the field well enough to recognize the names of the major players, these three count for a lot more than any of the three sources you and Nancy are claiming, even if you were using them correctly (which you aren't). I must also ask by what right you, a single editor, presume to unilaterally declare what shall or shall not be done with a Wikipedia page. Isn't there a rule about that sort of "ownership"? Harmakheru (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And while we're at it, let's add Henry Chadwick's The Early Church (245 citations, according to Google Scholar): "No doubt Peter's presence in Rome in the sixties must indicate a concern for Gentile Christianity, but we have no information whatever about his activity or the length of his stay there. That he was in Rome for twenty-five years is third-century legend." And finally there is J.N.D. Kelly's Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, published by Oxford University Press, with 126 citations (and don't forget that according to Nancy, Oxford is "the world's most respected university for history"): "Ignatius assumed that Peter and Paul wielded special authority over the Roman church, while Irenaeus claimed that they jointly founded it and inaugurated its succession of bishops. Nothing, however, is known of their constitutional roles, least of all Peter's as presumed leader of the community."

So now we have five--Brown, Meier, Cullmann, Chadwick, and Kelly, all of them highly respected by mainstream scholarship as authorities in their field, with citation counts to match, and none of whom agree with you--while you have, at best, a coffee-table book from National Geographic, with a citation count of 3. Which side do you think serious scholarship ought to come down on? Harmakheru (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And here is an article from the Scottish Journal of Theology arguing that Peter never went to Rome but died in Jerusalem. Perhaps the author is a lesser light than the ones presented by Harmakheru but the point is that the linkage of Peter to Rome is not a closed issue (as I, having been taught the Catholic doctrine, had always assumed it was). --Richard (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying again

Taking the above discussion into consideration, consider this rewrite of the article text:

The Catholic Church believes that Jesus Christ founded the Christian Church through his consecration of Saint Peter. As the continuation of the See of Rome which it believes to have been founded by Peter and Paul, the Church asserts that it is due the respect and authority consonant with the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Historians agree that, from the earliest years of Christianity, doctrinal disputes were referred to the See of Rome for arbitration.

Through Apostolic succession, the Church believes that its bishops are valid, consecrated successors of the original Apostles.

This approach neatly sidesteps any assertion as to whether the Catholic Church is the whole of the Christian Church or just part. It also sidesteps any assertion as to whether Peter and Paul actually founded the See of Rome or whether Peter was ever Bishop of Rome. Also note that I removed the word "the" from the assertion that Catholic bishops are "the valid successors of the original Apostles". The Catholic Church recognizes a bunch of non-Catholic bishops as "valid successors of the original apostles". Thus, its bishops are among the valid successors rather being the only valid successors.

Comments?

--Richard (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the first sentence, it would be safer to use the language of the Catechism (section 816) which says that after his resurrection Christ "entrusted" the Church to the "pastoral care" of Simon Peter. Explicitly linking the founding of the Church to the "consecration" of Peter (whatever that means) is chronologically and theologically debatable and opens up another can of worms that doesn't need opening.

With respect to the arbitration of doctrinal disputes, it would be safer to say "the early years" rather than the "earliest" years. Cullmann, who is a good representative of the more skeptical position on such things, says that "the Roman church does not play a leading role at all during the lifetime of the apostles. At the earliest it begins to play such a role in Christendom at the turn from the first to the second century." (p. 163) This would certainly be "early", but not "earliest". Harmakheru (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorporating Harmakheru's comments, we get something along the lines of:

The Catholic Church believes that after his resurrection Jesus Christ entrusted the Church to the pastoral care of Simon Peter. As the continuation of the See of Rome which it believes to have been founded by Peter and Paul, the Church asserts that it is due the respect and authority consonant with the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Historians agree that, starting in the early years of Christianity, doctrinal disputes were referred to the See of Rome for arbitration.

Through Apostolic succession, the Church believes that its bishops are valid, consecrated successors of the original Apostles.

Are there any objections to this wording?

--Richard (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

To say "respect and authority consonant with" sounds compatible with the Orthodox position. Catholics believe that Jesus promised and gave Peter a primacy of jurisdiction, that this was given not just to Peter but also to his successors, and that this primacy vested with the Roman Pontiff. It seems odd to me to use the same word ("believes") about these doctrinal points and also about Peter's connection to Rome, but if the Church is tied to a "belief" about that connection, it would seem to be more that Peter was martyred at Rome. Gimmetrow 12:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, the problem here is differentiating between which "historical facts" are based on Church tradition and which are supported by a wide consensus of historians. Harmakheru has presented sources that suggest that the historicity of the "founding" of the Church by Peter and Paul is disputed. The Church believes that the See of Rome was founded by Peter (and Paul) and that Peter was its first bishop. Whether this is accepted by a consensus of historians or not is not clear but there are some big names who dispute it. It's not clear to me that the historicity of these events is crucial to the Church's claim to the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff except perhaps for that minority which argues that Peter never went to Rome at all.

As for "respect and authority consonant with" being "compatible with the Orthodox position", I think this is a matter of definition. The phrasing is certainly wide enough to accomodate the Orthodox position but I think it also captures the Catholic position. The two sides disagree on how much "respect and authority" is implied by the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. If you dislike this phrasing, do you have an alternate to propose?

--Richard (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

But what would it mean to say "the Church believes" something about history, if there is no normative statement from the hierarchy and significant Catholics openly disagree with it? We might say "Irenaeus believed that Peter founded the church at Rome", but did he mean "founded" in the same sense most readers will assume? Gimmetrow 12:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, are you referring to the proposed sentence: "As the continuation of the See of Rome which it believes to have been founded by Peter and Paul, the Church asserts that it is due the respect and authority consonant with the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff."?

If so, perhaps the problem could be resolved by this approach: "As the continuation of the See of Rome, according to Church tradition was founded by Peter and Paul, the Church asserts that it is due the respect and authority consonant with the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff."

Here "Church tradition" is non-Scriptural information that we have via Church fathers such as Irenaeus and Eusebius.

We could further clarify the differentiation by changing the proposed text to read: "The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ founded the Christian Church through his consecration of Saint Peter."

--Richard (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's bad form to mix doctrinal points and disputed quasi-historical but not universal traditions. Mixing suggests or implies the doctrine depends on the disputed historical accuracy of that tradition. That implication might be part of the reason in some places the text says "historians agree" without saying "historians disagree". Gimmetrow 09:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Historians agree that, starting in the early years of Christianity, doctrinal disputes were referred to the See of Rome for arbitration." Well, first of all, you need a citation to support that. Then there's the question of weasel words. How early? All disputes or only some? By everyone or only by some people? Peter jackson (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we can find a citation fairly easily. We might wish to rephrase it to say "Doctrinal disputes were referred to the See of Rome for arbitration as early as....". As for the "all or some" questions, this assertion is in the lead section and so it is appropriate to gloss over some of the finer details. I think the "all or some" tack is going off in the wrong direction. The Orthodox don't really challenge this. I think what they challenge is whether this was being done as a deference to Rome as having a "first among equals" status and also as a relatively neutral third-party as opposed to a monarchical authority.--Richard (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And there is a difference between any disputes, and disputes in the West, which should be no problem for anybody who accepts that Rome was a Patriarchate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"the See of Rome which it believes to have been founded by Peter and Paul": that sounds a bit odd. Don't they believe Peter was the main founder & Paul just a sort of assistant? Peter jackson (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We can fix this easily if that is so. I've seen references to "Peter and Paul" so I suspect there is a bit of muddling of the two. This seems like a lesser issue but feel free to present arguments for "mostly Peter" if you like. --Richard (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> In looking at the article again, the body of the article never goes into detail about who founded the See of Rome, or into much detail about Peter and Paul. It is against WP:LEAD to include this info about the origins of the See of Rome in the lead if it not in the body, and I think this is likely too detailed to include in the body of the article too. (The appropriate article for all of this detail is Apostolic succession.) If we can't just do away with the "many historians agree..." phrase (the simplest solution, as this is a level of detail not needed in the lead), then something along these lines would work

The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter.[22] Evidence for the historicity of these claims is mixed.

Karanacs (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, with all due respect, "Yuck,no." I would assert that all of mainstream Christianity (and indeed really all of Christianity) is a continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus (that is, they are the intellectual and spiritual heirs of the original Christians). Those who assert apostolic succession (i.e. Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans) are in the business of differentiating between "valid" successors and the others. It is the historicity of apostolic succession (or, more precisely, the papal succession) from Peter that is at issue here, not the consecration of Peter (which, I believe, most Christians accept). It is true that there are theological and ecclesiological disputes about what exactly Jesus meant when he consecrated Peter but, unless we are getting into a discussion of the historicity of the Gospels, your text questions the historicity of the wrong thing. --Richard (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Point taken; what I think is key here is that we do not get into a long argument in this article on the validity of apostolic succesion, that the lead contains only the most important bits of the article, that nothing is in the lead that is not in the article text, and that both lead and article accurately reflect scholarship. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No. The latest contributions from Richard are way off track. They have gone right off topic and are far too detailed for the lead. What is being discussed is possible alternative text for just ONE SENTENCE. Karanacs point that we are merely talking about the lead - which is a condensation of what is written elsewhere - is correct. On the point of revisionist historians who postulate theories that peter was never in Rome or other realms of unevidenced speculation. This is already covered by the use of the term "many" historians state that...." Xandar 22:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the lead reflects the article body, and the article body (as appropriate) gives both viewpoints equal weight, then we should do the same in the lead. It should say something about divided opinions, rather than just present one side; or we can just remove it from the lead. Karanacs (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Many historians state that" clearly indicates that other historians may have different opinions. The point being made is that there is clear historical basis for the Church's foundation in Rome by Peter and Paul. Xandar 00:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Brown, Meier, Cullmann, Chadwick, and Kelly are not "revisionist historians", and their positions are not "unevidenced speculation"; on the contrary, they are the scholarly mainstream, while the position espoused by Xandar and Nancy is nothing but unevidenced speculation. They claim their position is supported by "many historians" but so far they have not been able to provide a single one that isn't either misquoted, misinterpreted, or misused. Even within the Catholic Church, scholars no longer feel bound to proclaim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, or even that he ministered for long in the city before his death there. In fact, Brown and Meier's book, which denies both, has the nihil obstat and imprimatur. In the United States, the Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs sponsored an ecumenical dialogue between Catholic and Lutheran scholars, resulting in a joint statement which declared: "There is increasing agreement that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there, but we have no trustworthy evidence that Peter ever served as the supervisor or bishop of the local church in Rome." (Building Unity, Ecumenical Documents IV (Paulist Press, 1989), p. 130.) As far as I can find, even the current Catechism has abandoned the claim of Peter's long stay and episcopal office; the Catechism frequently refers to the Pope as the successor of Peter, but it never refers to Peter as the bishop of Rome and tells us little or nothing about his sojourn there. If Rome and her scholars have abandoned the old legends, which mainstream historians declare to have no demonstrable basis or historical value, why do Xandar and Nancy cling to them so tenaciously, and insist that they be treated by Wikipedia as proven facts? If indeed there is "clear historical basis" for their claim, why can't they come up with any proper sources that say so? Harmakheru (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I like Karanacs suggestion, it is by far, the most reasonable and one that respects Wikipedia's policies of allowing Reader to know both sides - that some historians agree and others don't, a referenced fact we have already presented in the Origins and Mission section. Harmakheru seems to be just arguing a point we have already covered in that section, that some historians disagree. NancyHeise ^talk 01:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I did make an edit some time ago that changed the text to read "a view shared by some historians and disputed by others". Admittedly, the "disputed by others" was supported by a lame reference but I assumed other editors would be able to offer a better one. My edit was reverted by Farsight001. Are there any objections to making this edit again? We could use Harmakheru's sources as references for the "disputed by others" text. --Richard (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of style, some historians hold that Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome, others see no evidence for it would be simpler; a third clause, that some doubt that there was any single bishop of Rome in the first century, may be too long for the lead, but is clearly supportable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, most historians think there was no bishop of Rome, or anywhere else, until the 2nd century. I've already given 2 citations above & have 2 more to hand.

Perhaps a more straightforward statement would be something like "Even in the 2nd century, Rome was recognized as the head of the Church in some sense." This avoids abstract questions about the "same" church. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That's both Olympic-level vagueness - and off-topic. Xandar 23:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor is there a source for any claim that it is Roman Catholic doctrine that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome; many Roman Catholics, and many Protestants, may believe and teach it, but that's not the same thing. The miracles of Saint George have also been widely held and taught, but they are nobody's doctrine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

More irrelevance - even if it were true. We're talking about the origin of the Catholic Church, so the exact title of Peter is not significant. Actually all the Apostles, by definition, held the status of Bishop. Xandar 23:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

being bold

I've been bold and removed the clause from the lead that stated "many historians agree" on the origin of the Catholic Church foundation. The entire rest of the paragraph discusses church beliefs; adding anything about historians here is really inappropriate and jarring. Many sources have been provided above that appear to show that this "historians agree" statement is likely not the mainstream opinion, and the lead is absolutely not the place to delve into so much detail. Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I support this on the basis that "many historians agree ..." doesn't really mean much or prove anything. I imagine that "many historians disagree ..." is also the case. The article already contains too many comments that appear to be included for some kind of apologist purposes and do not belong in a secular encyclopedia. Afterwriting (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal. It's the easiest way to resolve the issue without getting into a detailed explanation of why some historians agree and others don't. --Richard (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Catholic instead of Roman Catholic

suggestion to include points in article Re:title

refer for argument points: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

Reference: Thurston, H. (1912). Roman Catholic. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.114.32 (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe we have resolved the name issue after months of discussion and a successful mediation with over 19 editors. I have no desire to discuss the issue any further : ) NancyHeise ^talk 01:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not; in general, any action which keeps producing new complaints is not resolved. The mediation was between the single-purpose accounts who adorn this talk page with Ultramontane opinions and a hand-picked selection of rivals; it has not satisfied all those who took part in it; it can have no force over others.

Even if it were flawless, it is now a past decision. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.

However, Nancy's last paragraph, even if offered in jest, does provide a road out. All those who discussed this question in the past are together a small minority of Wikipedians; if we put it up for discussion, and all of us who have ever discussed the matter before shut up, we might actually get a result. (It would differ chiefly in acrimony from including all of us; we have always beem closely divided.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you hope to win a consensus of the uninformed and ignorant? Not a good idea. We could do that on all the articles. Anybody who knows anything about the subject, shuts up, and the people without a clue write the articles based on tittle tattle and urban legends. And your attempts to rewrite the naming policies to push your POV on this issue wont work either. Xandar 12:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would not win any consensus, for I participated in the last debate, and would shut up too. More seriously, I do not believe that our fellow editors are either uninformed or ignorant; nor if they were, would it matter to a democrat who believes in the jury system: even the ignorant are better judges of what the generality understand than the tendentious and polemical. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I think the anon above was putting in his/her two cents for the agreed consensus. Please click on the link he provides above [6] NancyHeise ^talk 01:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, that reference. Insofar as this article adopts the talking points of the Catholic Encyclopedia, it becomes POV and liable to factual error; the New Catholic Encyclopedia, by contrast, is a work of scholarship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted by thousands of top grade reference works across the world. Next. Xandar 12:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is quoted as a source for "what Catholics believe" (or did believe in the early 20th century), or for "admissions against interest" by the Catholic party. But it is clearly not an unbiased scholarly source, and can't be quoted as such, since it has a definite point of view and had to support and conform to a particular sectarian position on many issues in order to obtain the nihil obstat and imprimatur from Catholic authorities. Harmakheru (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And off we go again...-:)Haldraper (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. Let's not go here again. Can we have, say, a twelve-month moratorium during which nobody mentions the article name? Please?! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It was six months the last time this came up; but tag it as {{pov-title}}, since it is disputed, and I have no problem leaving it alone. If this is done, newbies may be less likely to bring up the subject too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion but I expect that some will interpret it as an invitation to keep reigniting the dispute. Isn't there some policy that "protects" a consensus for a certain period? If not then there needs to be. Afterwriting (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there is none, and WP:Consensus opposes any. If a real consensus has been reached, it doesn't need protection; the mark of a real consensus is that almost everyone will tolerate it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, but common sense and courtesy suggest that editors ought not to re-raise an issue that has been "settled" just because a perfect consensus was not achieved. In the absence of new evidence (not just a rehash of previously presented arguments), decisions ought to be allowed to stand for 3-6 months just so we can get a break and do something else other than go around in circles for the umpty-umpth time. In other words, don't reopen a dispute just because you disagree with the outcome; do so because you truly think a different result can be reached. (note I said "can be" not "ought to be") --Richard (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Pick a date then; and preferably tag (a perpetual state of "we'll discuss that three months from now" won't do). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There will never be 100% consensus on this, and the handful of editors that objects will always object. But if consensus was reached, at some point dissenters need to at least pause, or we'll have the same discussion in here every day. Dissenters are certainly under no obligation to accept a consensus in the sense of agreeing with it...but at least show some respect for it. Also, we should not start a 90-day countdown to reopen the discussion. That is arbitrary and, frankly, an ominous precedent to set for issues that don't reach 100% consensus. But raising the issue in a few months if new arguments or support exists, or even to test the temperature of the community, would not be unreasonable. That would be consistent with WP:consensus, showing deference to consensus while acknowledging that it is not immutable. It's just rather tiring to come to this talk page every day and hear the same thing repeated over and over. --anietor (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If there had been consensus on this, there would not be protest - by those who participated in the failed mediation and by others. That would be a different situation. As it is, there never has been consensus on this, either way; and we should tag accordingly - unless Richardhusr's suggestion of postponement is accompanied by a date. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. I lost my will to live about half-way through the last round of mediation. But if people want to raise the issue again, so be it. Here's a proposal for a rule of thumb about when we could open the issue again: how long did the last mediation last? I forget, but it was about three months, no? (Or more. It felt like years.) How about that it's only polite that people wait twice the length of the previous mediation before bringing the issue up again. So if the mediation did last three months, then wait until six months after it ended. That would mean that we would only be spending a third of our time debating the article title. Which is already plenty, but still... It seems a fair rule of thumb. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of Wikipedia decisions are made by a small minority; it is the nature of the beast. Those with a a degree of expertise are drawn to their topics of interest as well as those who are also interested not out of expertise but other motivations. It is beyond silly to say that a Catholic source is not best suited for declaring the name of the Catholic Church. It would be similar to saying that all medical journals must be ignored when studying medical procedures and we must or preferably use plumbing journals. The logic boggles the mind; of course we use Catholic sources for all things Catholic! It is absurd to think otherwise.

If editors have something new to the table, bring it forward for discussion. However, if we just want to play games by rehashing the same old ineffective line of reasoning for why this article should be named Roman Catholic Church, I encourage all to to my Sandbox2 and we can talk there. It may take a while for me to respond to you, but don't let that stop anyone. Write as much as a you like and for as long as you like and as often as you like. Heck, bring it up every day for the rest of the year. The rest of us will be avid readers to your new logic, reasons, etc. It will be a fascinating way to pass the time. Next topic? --^StormRider 19:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Where it's a case of what the Church calls itself, I agree that Catholic sources should be preeminent. What I and some other editors object to is the over reliance in other areas - World War II is a good example - on authors who are also ordained members of the Church (Bokenkotter, McGonigle, Vidmar) when there are plenty of alternative, mainstream, secular historians who could provide a more balanced view.Haldraper (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"The vast majority of Wikipedia decisions are made by a small minority", SR? Are there any WP decisions not taken by a small minority? Peter jackson (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Good point, Peter. Beware the CABAL, it may be you. Resistance is futile; assimilation into the cabal is inevitable. --Richard (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Peter, my edit was in response to Septentrionalis above, "All those who discussed this question in the past are together a small minority of Wikipedians; if we put it up for discussion, and all of us who have ever discussed the matter before shut up, we might actually get a result." To me it is comical to attempt to disregard a decision when made by numerous participants by ridiculing it as being made by a small minority. I would agree were it a decision made by three editors, but that was not the case here. The consensus was achieved by numerous editors and it should stand for quite some time or until an editor comes up with some new references and cause the decision to be reversed. --^StormRider 17:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

StormRider raises a valid point. Just because a decision should be allowed to rest for a while (say, 3 or 6 months) doesn't mean it SHOULD BE revisited as soon as the moratorium is over. If editors are asked to revisit any decision, there should be some justification presented for revisiting the decision such as "sources X, Y and Z were never presented" or "the question was not advertised to a wide enough group of editors e.g. via RFC or via posting to relevant article talk pages or Wikiproject talk pages". This particular decision was fairly widely advertised so I don't think a reasonable challenge can be mounted on that basis. I certainly would be open to seeing new sources but I think it behooves anyone challenging the decision to have reviewed at least the mediation pages if not the article Talk Page discussion that preceded the mediation. In particular, the challenger should be familiar with the sources that have been presented so far.

It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy although it may resemble one from time to time. We shouldn't keep repeating !votes just because one side didn't like the result; if we took that approach, there would be no end to the repeat votes because there will always be a losing side that doesn't like the result.

--Richard (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Have the mediation pages been undeleted? Until they are, they are unreviewable.

The mediation does not count as "review by a wide panel of editors"; it was a discussion by a handpicked panel of complaintants on a different subject; no-one else was notified. Therefore Richardhusr's conditions are met now - but (as I have said) I will be content with an acknowledgement that the title is disputed. Is anyone so audacious as to deny that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson, we are not here to affirm or deny your feelings. Looking at your history of edits in this and other pages, this seems to be a consistent theme for you. We are not about to issue an "acknowledgment" of your objections. We know (all too well) what your dispute is with the title. Like it or not, consensus was reached. Nice try attempting to portray editors who disagree with you as "audacious", especially when they are part of the consensus; it's certainly a gutsy interpretation of being bold. I wholeheartedly reject your statement that the discussion was a handpicked panel of complainants, that it was on a different subject, and that no one else was notified. That is revisionist history belied by the facts (thank goodness wp maintains histories of discussions). I have to say that I really wanted to just ignore your last comment so as not to illicit more droning on of the same string of old complaints, but I also did not want silence to be interpreted as agreement. Tough call... --anietor (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Anietor capable of reading plain English? I did not request that any feelings be acknowledged; but the fact that editors do dispute the neutrality of this title; and audacious describes those who would deny that it is disputed. Anietor denies much, but he does not deny that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You may not like the result of the recent process, but that does not justify a POV tag. --Snowded ^TALK 14:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Succinctly put, Snowded! And for Pmanderson's purposes, yes, I deny it is disputed. To do otherwise would give you license to repeatedly tag and vandalize the article. --anietor (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, that flag isn't called for at the moment. Majoreditor (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson, there are better things to do with your time than try to argue a point that has already been decided. --Rockstone (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

60-40 is not a decision, it's a stalemate; I will be happy to continue this discussion with anybody with candor enough to join me in acknowledging this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it wasn't 60-40. As noted weeks ago when this was first suggested, this 60-40 breakdown is an invention based on Pmanderson's creative revisionist history, including a bizarre analysis of how certain editors really wanted to vote (using comments to actually trump their actual vote). --anietor (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My claim is based on this poll. I should like to know Anietor's count of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Cultural influence section

I've done a lot of reading in the last few days in an effort to improve the cultural influence section. I've made an attempt to bring the research I've done together in the text below. I propose that this, or a form of it, will replace the current first paragraph of the section. Karanacs (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

proposed text

Although some Christian ideals were adopted by the Roman Empire, there is little evidence to link most of these laws to Church influence. After the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the official religion, however, the link between Christian teachings and Roman family laws became more clear. Early Church Fathers advocated against polygamy, abortion, infanticide, child abuse, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest.

By the late 11th century, beginning with the efforts of Pope Gregory VII, the Church successfully established itself as "an autonomous legal and political ... [entity] within Western Christendom". For the next several hundred years, the Church held great influence over Western society; church laws were the single "universal law ... common to jurisdictions and peoples throughout Europe", giving the Church "preeminent authority". With its own court system, the Church retained jurisdiction over many aspects of ordinary life, including education, inheritance, oral promises, oaths, moral crimes, and marriage. As one of the more powerful institutions of the Middle Ages, Church attitudes were reflected in many secular laws of the time.

Church teaching heavily influenced the legal concept of marriage. During the Gregorian Reform, the Church developed and codified a view of marriage as a sacrament. In a departure from societal norms, Church law required the consent of both parties before a marriage could be performed and established a minimum age for marriage. The elevation of marriage to a sacrament also made the union a binding contract, with dissolutions overseen by Church authorities. Although the Church abandoned tradition to allow women the same rights as men to dissolve a marriage, in practice, when an accusation of infidelity was made, men were granted dissolutions more frequently than women.

The teachings of the Church were also used to "establish[...] the status of women under the law". According to historian Shulamith Shahar, "[s]ome historians hold that the Church played a considerable part in fostering the inferior status of women in medieval society in general" by providing a "moral justification" for male superiority and by accepting practices such as wife-beating. Despite these laws, some women, particularly abbesses, gained powers that were never available to women in previous Roman or Germanic societies.

Although these teachings emboldened secular authorities to give women fewer rights than men, they also helped form the concept of chivalry. Chivalry was influenced by a new Church attitude towards Mary, the mother of Jesus. This "ambivalence about women's very nature" was shared by most major religions in the Western world.

The Church initially accepted slavery as part of the social fabric of society during the Roman Empire and early antiquity, campaigning primarily for humane treatment of slaves but also admonishing slaves to behave appropriately towards their masters. During the early medieval period, this attitude changed to one which opposed enslavement of Christians but still tolerated enslavement of non-Christians. By the end of the Medieval period, enslavement of Christians had been converted to serfdom within Europe, although slavery existed in European colonies in other parts of the world. Several popes issued papal bulls condeming mistreatment of enslaved Native Americans; these were largely ignored. In his 1839 bull In Supremo Apostolatus, Pope Gregory XVI condemned all forms of slavery; nevertheless some American bishops continued to support slavery for several decades.

Sources used

• Bitel, Lisa (2002), Women in early medieval Europe, 400-1100, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521592070
• Nathan, Geoffrey S. (2002), The Family in Late Antiquity: The Rise of Christianity and the Endurance of Tradition, New York: Routledge, ISBN 9780203006696
• Power, Eileen (1995), Postand, Michael Moissey (ed.), Medieval women, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521595568
• Shahar, Shulamith (2003), The Fourth Estate: A History of Women in the Middle Ages, New York: Routledge
• Witte, John (1997), From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition, Louisvill, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, ISBN 9780664255435

Comments

This is likely too long to incorporate completely into the article, and is probably not the best prose. How can we improve this for inclusion in the article? Note: I would also like to include the entire note that is currently in the article on slaverly as a note in this version, even though I took part of it for this text. Karanacs (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting formulation - but there are a lot of significant problems with this text. Firstly the focus of the section itself is on the changes, the cultural impact that Christianity made to pre-existing societies and its development. The tenor of a lot of the passage goes off on lengthy tangents from this, including a lot of stuff about the church's own institutions and their development. There are also factual points to be examined, along with missing elements. For example the sentence "Although the Church abandoned tradition to allow women the same rights as men to dissolve a marriage,[9][18] in practice, when an accusation of infidelity was made, men were granted dissolutions more frequently than women." is inaccurate on several counts - even when one compares it with its source in Shahar's book. First the passage is talking about legal separation rather than dissolution, then the "abandoning tradition" part is ambiguous and unclear, not making clear the Church's general presumption of equality of treatment, and finally the one stated element of more negative treatment of women is quoted when the passage contains many more examples of equal treatment between the sexes and some where women received better treatment than men. The direct quote used from Shahar, in both text and note, is a one-sided negative one - and one which itself quotes an alleged and unproven opinion supposedly held by "some historians" that the Church "fostered an inferior status for women". A more relevant quote from Shahar might be that Women of the middle ages "wielded powers of government such as they never had in Roman or Germanic society, nor in modern western Europe before the 20th century." (p12). That is more factual and presents a totally different picture. The slavery section too is inaccurate in many respects, slavery was condemned by the Church many centuries before 1839, enslaving non-Christians was specifically condemned, and the whole idea of slavery being something that was "not right or proper" came from the Church. So, while there is a framework here that could be useful, there are some very significant changes needed. Xandar 00:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

By and large it's OK, but it may be too detailed. Direct quotes from Shahar, either the one you've proposed or the one mentioend by Xander, are probably too much. Additionally, this section should provide a high-level perspective; for example, the current first paragraph starts with the sentence The influence of the Catholic Church on world culture and society has been vast, first and foremost in the development of European civilization from Greco-Roman times to the modern era. Majoreditor (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that its too detailed. I think we can use some of this material to expand the Cultural Influence section but I am not in favor of replacing current text with this proposal. Merging of some parts of the new suggestion is more likely. NancyHeise ^talk 01:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Both the current and the proposed text have merit. Merging the two may be a good approach. I have no problem with replacing portions of the existing paragraph with portions of the proposed text. Majoreditor (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Names of the Catholic Church

I have raised the question of whether or not the topic of Names of the Catholic Church warrants an article unto itself. Please provide your perspective here. --Richard (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Do refs support view that "Many scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus"?

In contrast to the sentence in the lead about the Church being a continuation of the early Christian community in Palestine, this one states that the Catholic Church was actually founded there by Jesus in his lifetime. A more orthodox academic view is that the Catholic Church in its recognisable form (Pope/centralised bureaucracy in Rome, bishops in dioceses across Europe) was founded in the late Roman Empire of the early fourth century and in many ways replicated and eventually replaced its structures.Haldraper (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hal, it's not clear whether you are challenging the current text of the article or the text that I proposed. I'm going to assume you are talking about the current text which reads: "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter,[22] a view shared by many historians of Christianity." As I and others have stated before, if we drop the phrase "a view shared by many historians of Christianity", the sentence is fine as it stands because it makes an assertion about what the Catholic Church believes. Most of Christianity believes that Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ. The question is whether there is enough of linkage between the Catholic Church and Simon Peter to say that "many historians share this view". Do historians believe what Irenaeus wrote "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric." The early Christian Church may have evolved between the time of Simon Peter and Constantine and Leo the Great. That's not the point. The question is whether historians believe that Peter and Paul went to Rome and made Linus Bishop of Rome, thus starting the papal succession which links the current Bishop of Rome to the Primacy of Simon Peter. Do at least some historians share this view? If so, we are only attempting to qualify which ones do and which ones do not. If no significant historians share this view and the general consensus is that the Church as we know it was "founded" in the late Roman Empire, then we will need to see what the sources are that support such an assertion. --Richard (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, tagging it as "failed verification" when a discussion is going on is silly. I have reverted. --Snowded ^TALK 09:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And I think Richard has written a very clear summation of what is in dispute here. Xandar 10:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not talking about or challenging the sentence in the lead that reads "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter, a view shared by many historians of Christianity." I am fine with that as it stands. The sentence that I think is unsupported by its supposed refs - and therefore tagged as such - is "Many scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus". I thought that was clear from my initial post but obviously not, can we please therefore discuss that.Haldraper (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. While the "failed verification" flag may be a bit much, the statement would benefit from firmer sourcing. An alternative would be to rephrase the sentence. Majoreditor (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What about this? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm Its a list of all the popes since Peter. It clearly shows that the position of Pope had existed for many years before the late Roman Empire. --Rockstone (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Rockstone35, this would be a better link to consult for the Catholic perspective on this question.

With all due respect, the list of Popes is a bit of retrospective, somewhat revisionist history prepared for easy consumption by the masses.

From about.com

Many people imagine that the current structure and administration of the Catholic Church today is much like it has always been, but that’s not the case. Early on, there isn’t even evidence of a single bishop of Rome presiding over churches in the city. Although the official lists give the names of several “popes” during the first decades of Christianity, it is more likely that they simply presided over a council of elders. The first pope who was actually a single bishop presiding over the diocese of Rome was Pius I (142 - 155).

From our article on the Pope:

The title "Pope" was from the early third century an honorific designation used for any bishop in the West. In the East it was used only for the Bishop of Alexandria. Pope Marcellinus (d. 304) is the first Bishop of Rome shown in sources to have had the title "Pope" used of him. From the 6th century, the imperial chancery of Constantinople normally reserved this designation for the Bishop of Rome. From the early sixth century it began to be confined in the West to the Bishop of Rome, a practice that was firmly in place by the eleventh century, when Pope Gregory VII declared it reserved for the Bishop of Rome.

In the lead, the article cites Wilken p.281 (currently reference #24). The above history of the title "Pope" is what leads Wilken to write "Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome."

The point here is that Peter was never called "Pope" and proably neither were Linus, Anacletus or Clement or any other Bishop of Rome until the early third century. And, even then, the title "Pope" did not mean, in and of itself, "Supreme Pontiff" (Pontifex Maximus). The Bishop of Rome did not become Pontifex Maximus until the 4th century.

From our article on Pontifex Maximus:

It is said that Pope Damasus I was the first Bishop of Rome to assume the title, Other sources say that the use of such titles by bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, came later.

This is not to argue that the Bishop of Rome exerted no authority over other bishops prior to Pope Damasus I in the 4th century but it does indicate that the authority of the Bishop of Rome was evolving in the years prior to that. It is a matter of dispute whether the Bishop of Rome was always considered the "head of the Christian Church". Obviously, the Catholics think that. The Orthodox and Anglicans have a different perspective.

Irenaeus asserted a link between Peter/Paul and Linus, Anacletus and Clement. There is a challenge earlier on this page to the linkage between Peter and the rest of the papal succession on the grounds that Peter was either never in Rome or never Bishop of Rome. The argument that Peter was never in Rome is a minority view. The argument that he was not Bishop of Rome is probably a minority view in mainstream Christianity. I can't say what secular historians think of this but there seems to be scant support for Peter being the Bishop of Rome even in the New Testament. Xandar argues that this is irrelevant because Peter was Bishop by dint of being one of the Twelve Apostles and so (as I understand his argument) he could have consecrated Linus without ever having been officially "Bishop of Rome".

--Richard (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict with Majoreditor and Rockstone35]

Sorry, Hal, my fault. It was late at night and I jumped to the wrong conclusion. It would have helped if you had mentioned the section heading "Origin and mission" to help identify which sentence you were talking about.

In any event, I agree that there are problems with the sentence "Many scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus". Is the assertion "the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus" meant to be an assertion of historical fact or Church doctrine (i.e. "sacred history" as StormRider puts it). Who are these "many scholars"? Are they Catholic theologians, historians or writers?

The sentence as written is not NPOV because, while it is arguably true, it gives the wrong impression by the vagueness of the phrase "many scholars". Once again, most of mainstream Christianity (and even to some extent the Restorationists) believes that the Christian church was founded by Jesus as some combination of the consecration of Peter (before the crucifixion), the Great Commission and Pentecost (both after the resurrection).

One of the references cites Norman as asserting that "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime."

If we talk about "Jesus' earthly lifetime", are we talking before the crucifixion" or after it? Are we really trying to assert that "many scholars agree" that the Church was founded by the consecration of Peter and not by the phenomenon known as Pentecost? It seems to me that the major motivation for such a claim is to establish the claims of the Catholic Church to the Primacy of Simon Peter vs. the claims of other Christian churches to a more ecumenical basis of the early Christian Church.

Some historians argue that the Christian church was started in the years after Jesus died and we really do need to make some mention of this view if we are going to state the Christian perspective although it's not clear to me how much weight to give it. Is there a consensus among historians about this?

Whether or not you believe in the resurrection, the point here is that there is little evidence of an organized church existing before Jesus died; there were, AFAIK, no deacons, elders or bishops in those days. The church as an institution does not come into being until after Jesus dies and arguably not even until after he ascends into heaven. The New Testament establishes the existence of the offices deacon, presbyter/elder and bishop but not in the Gospels.

If we are going to assert that the Church was founded by Jesus, we need to make clear what we mean by "the Church". Do we mean that Jesus founded "the Catholic Church" or the "Christian Church"? The mainstream view is that these were one and the same leaving out, of course, the Restorationists and some recent views which suggest a pluralist Christianity that includes, among others, the Gnostics). We also need to make clear that Jesus didn't found the church by appointing bishops and establishing the offices of elder and deacon. Basically, all he said was “On this rock I will build my church” and left the details to be filled in after he died. Even the Great Commission is not given until after the resurrection.

--Richard (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is the question as to how seriously to take the instructions at the Last Supper. I think I've read somewhere, although I will have to check, that some believe the instructions given there, as they indicate how to perform the rites of the church, were how Jesus "founded" the church. It might take me a couple of days to find the sourcing for that though. This leaves open the question about whether currently "many scholars" agree, particularly if the sourcing is somewhat old and thus cannot speak to the current thinking. I think that "argument" could be made by the various Orthodox, Anglican, and Catholic churches. Let me try to find the sourcing in any event. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

John, are you referring to the belief that the Last Supper was when Jesus ordained the apostles, thus forming the church? That was supported by the Council of Trent, and Lumen Gentium. A brief summary can be found at http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/PRIEST.TXT --anietor (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the Council of Trent is looking backwards and imposing a theological interpretation on history. In other words, just cause they said so doesn't mean it is necessarily so. This is what the Catholic Church teaches. It may not be unshakeable historical truth.

The problem here is that one can imagine a very different Christianity (indeed some do imagine a church-less Christianity) which incorporates all these events and not wind up with the Catholic Church. Those who argue for a pluralistic Christianity in the first few centuries following the death of Jesus do make such a case (i.e. that mainstream Christianity was not the only form of early Christianity, just the one which was most successful).

So... when we say that Jesus "founded" the Christian Church or even the Catholic Church through these actions, we are presenting the viewpoint of mainstream Christianity and, in particular, the Catholic Church. That's OK but we need to present this viewpoint as an interpretation of history (indeed a theological interpretation), not as indisputable historical fact. It's not as if Jesus called a meeting of the Twelve Apostles and said, "OK, here's the Charter of the Christian Church, you twelve are the Board of Directors, we'll call you bishops, Peter, you're the head bishop, let's call you Pope, and uh, we'll need some elders, nah, let's call them priests and then we also need deacons and hey, those priests can't get married and they gotta be men. OK, all in favor? Great. Let's file this charter with the local Imperial Roman Office of Not-for-Profit Corporations and get this thing started". If we could find the minutes of such a meeting or the filing of such a corporate charter , we would then have solid historical evidence for the assertion "Jesus founded the Christian Church during his earthly lifetime". Failing that, we are using theological interpretations of the New Testament account of his teachings and extrapolating them into the founding of the Christian (Catholic) Church as an institution.

We have to be really clear on what is historical fact and what is theological interpretation. What is historical fact is that certain events are recorded in the New Testament and the Patristic writings. Whether these events are historical fact can be argued. Whether these events can be interpreted to be the "founding" of a religious institution called "the Catholic Church" is far from indisputable historical fact.

--Richard (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We also have to agree to the definition of the terms "many", "scholars", and "agree". The terms as such do not specifically indicate neutrality. Lots of scholars have been and are Catholic or Orthodox, and I think they would support the idea. "Agree" could be problematic because it isn't sure what the standard of agreement here in this case. If these scholars agreed for different reasons, would they still agree? Personally, with the current phrasing, I have to say that the terms would permit the usage, because they don't address the matter of "non-partisan" scholars. Certainly, many/most of the Christian scholars over history are or were Catholic or Orthodox. Alternately, someting like what Britannica does here could be done to deal with this question, saying that the elements which we associate with the Catholic Church can be found in the Bible, and leaving alone the question as to whether that means those elements necessarily mean the Catholic Church was present. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If the key issue is what is the historical evidence for the foundation of the Church, it is probably more considerable than for many contemporary events whose veracity is never challenged. There are:

• The Gospels, of 1st century origin, which record Jesus founding a continuing Church and appointing Peter to a leading role.
• Acts. (also 1st century) which records the early development of the Church between Jesus's death and the imprisonment of Paul in Rome.
• The NT letters: written between the 50s and 100 AD, which confirm the existence of the Church, the episcopal status of the Apostles and the continuing concept of one united Church. The presence of Peter and Paul together, and their role in organising, teaching and managing the worldwide Church.
• Pagan reports of the presence of large numbers of Christians in Rome at the time of Nero. (60s AD), and their persecution, confirming the Christian documents.
• Tradition, reported by many writers from the early 2nd Century onward that Peter and Paul led the Church in Rome, and that Rome was the one Church with which all must agree because of this. The strong tradition of the leadership of Rome is very early, and unchallenged in its primacy even by the other patriarchates.
• Archaeology, including the evidence of the Roman catacombs and the tombs including that of Peter found at the Vatican, itself built on the site of one of the stadiums used for public executions.

These are the reasons why few historians would seriously deny that the Catholic Church is in continuance of the original church founded on Peter in Rome. Some might deny it - but based purely on theorising rather than solid evidence. Asking for original 1st century documents is going too far. If we said historians didn't believe in Julius Caesar because there are no extant 1st century documents about him - then this would be seen as being ridiculous. Xandar 00:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's OR until you put it in the words of a reliable source. Find us a source who presents these arguments and who either says what the article text says or says "few historians would seriously deny that the Catholic Church is in continuance of the original church founded on Peter in Rome". It's not acceptable to go provide citations to one or two historians and then extrapolate that to "many historians". [[7]] says "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. ... The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor." WP:RS doesn't explicitly say that you can't say "many historians" but the spirit of the text suggests that this is not preferred.

I like the Encyclopedia Britannica approach which says "By its own reading of history, Roman Catholicism originated with the very beginnings of Christianity. " and "At least in an inchoate form, all the elements of catholicity—doctrine, authority, universality—are evident in the New Testament." This makes clear that we are talking about historical interpretation from the POV of the Catholic Church and mainstream Christianity rather than presenting it as historical fact.

--Richard (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I think what you say supports the view that the Church is a continuation of the early Christian community in first century Palestine as per the sentence in the lead but not the one we're actually discussing, i.e. the one in 'Origin and Mission' that states that "Many scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus". If you think about what distinguishes the Catholic Church - headed by a Pope and bureaucracy (Curia) in Rome, use of Latin as its official language, subdivided into dioceses corresponding to imperial provinces - then its roots in the late Roman Empire are unmistakeable.Haldraper (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar writes, "few historians would seriously deny that the Catholic Church is in continuance of the original church founded on Peter in Rome". But in fact most mainstream historians today--Protestant, Catholic, and secular--do deny this, for the reason that there is no historical proof that the "original church in Rome" was in fact "founded on Peter":

"As for Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what he did there before he was martyred. Certainly he was not the original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense). There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church--a claim not made till the third century. Most likely he did not spend any major time at Rome before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that Peter came to the capital." (Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Christianity (Paulist Press, 1983), p. 98.)

"In the New Testament [Jerusalem] is the only church of which we hear that Peter stood at its head. Of other episcopates of Peter we know nothing certain. Concerning Antioch, indeed ... there is a tradition, first appearing in the course of the second century, according to which Peter was its bishop. The assertion that he was Bishop of Rome we first find at a much later time. From the second half of the second century we do possess texts that mention the apostolic foundation of Rome, and at this time, which is indeed rather late, this foundation is traced back to Peter and Paul, an assertion that cannot be supported historically. Even here, however, nothing is said as yet of an episcopal office of Peter." (Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2nd ed. (Westminster Press, 1962), p. 234.)

"No doubt Peter's presence in Rome in the sixties must indicate a concern for Gentile Christianity, but we have no information whatever about his activity or the length of his stay there. That he was in Rome for twenty-five years is third-century legend." (Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, rev. ed. (Penguin Books, 1993), p. 18.)

"Ignatius assumed that Peter and Paul wielded special authority over the Roman church, while Irenaeus claimed that they jointly founded it and inaugurated its succession of bishops. Nothing, however, is known of their constitutional roles, least of all Peter's as presumed leader of the community." (J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes (Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 6.)

"There is increasing agreement that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there, but we have no trustworthy evidence that Peter ever served as the supervisor or bishop of the local church in Rome." (Building Unity, Ecumenical Documents IV (Paulist Press, 1989), p. 130.)

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that there was a Christian community at Rome before either Peter or Paul arrived there:

"Even on the Day of Pentecost, "Roman strangers" (advenœ Romani, Acts 2:10) were present at Jerusalem, and they surely must have carried the good news to their fellow-citizens at Rome ... according to the pseudo-Clementine Epistles, St. Barnabas was the first to preach the Gospel in the Eternal City." "Rome", Catholic Encyclopedia [8]

So the "original" Christian community at Rome was not founded by either Peter or Paul, since it already existed before they arrived there; and whatever Peter or Paul's role may have been in that community in the two or three years before their martyrdoms, there is inadequate historical evidence to say that they ruled that community as bishops, whether in name or in function. The most reputable modern historians are agreed on this point: "cannot be supported historically", "we have no information whatever", "nothing is known", "no trustworthy evidence", etc. Those who assert the contrary are making confessional claims, not historical ones. Harmakheru (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, Harmakheru, let's assume that all of the above is true... where does that leave us? It seems we are stuck on the connection between the Catholic Church and Peter/Paul. Let's let that go for now. Can we assert that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the original Christian community in Rome (leaving out the specific details of any leadership role played by Peter and Paul)? Can we assert that the Catholic Church represents one of the major continuations of the "church" founded by Jesus Christ (acknowledging that the Church in Jesus' time and in apostolic times bears little resemblance in structure to that of the Catholic Church)? In effect, the Catholic Church claims that it evolved from the early church of apostolic times. If we ignore the claims about "being the continuation of the Church founded in Rome by Peter and Paul", is there historical support for the base claim of continuity from the apostles to the present day? Even if we ignore the specific position of Peter and Paul as "Bishops of Rome", there is the assertion of a line of "Popes" from Linus, Anacletus and Clement I onwards. If this is not the "original Christian community in Rome", it is certainly the Christian community in Rome by the time we get to the 2nd century. --Richard (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardly any secular historians today would agree that Linus, Anacletus, or Clement were "popes"; this is a retrojection of later structures back into the first century, something which almost all Catholic historiography was infected with until the last fifty years or so. The monarchical episcopacy did not emerge at Rome until some time in the second century; instead there was a council of presbyters, which may well have had a presiding presbyter who was "first among equals"--but not a "bishop" in the modern sense of the term, and certainly not any kind of "pope". (This is why Ignatius of Antioch does not address or mention a "bishop" in his letter to Rome ca. AD 107, in contrast to his practice in his other letters. He couldn't, because there wasn't one.)

The Christian community at Rome in the mid-first century was by all accounts a variegated and contentious bunch, and it is unlikely that they would all have accepted any single person, even an apostle, as their leader. According to Clement, it was factionalism and rivalry within the Christian community at Rome that resulted in the deaths of Peter and Paul; Paul himself complains in his letters about the divisions in the Roman community, how some people resisted his teaching, how others preached Christ out of spite in order to get him into further trouble, and how almost everyone deserted him when he came to trial. The practical result of these divisions seems to have been that the Christian community at Rome was very nearly wiped out by the Neronian persecution, and had to be reconstituted as a viable community by the next generation. It is during this second phase, toward the end of the first century--after the "sudden misfortunes and repeated calamities" mentioned by Clement--that the Roman church intervenes in the Corinthian dispute and begins to exercise some measure of pastoral concern for the network of churches that were starting to call themselves the Catholic Church. It is also in this second phase that the Church at Rome consciously aligns itself with the persons and teachings of the martyrs Peter and Paul, and in that sense could be said to be "founded" on them in a way it had not been before. It is only from this point that the continuity between the See of Rome today and the See of Rome in ancient times can be demonstrated historically--a continuity shared collectively by all the churches of the early second century Catholic "network". Harmakheru (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Linus, Anacletus, and Clement were popes. The probably never heard the name Pope mentioned, because that is a popular title, used by people a lot later - a corruption of Patriarch. The New testament shows us Bishops being appointed for all the new communities, the idea that Rome was the only city without a Bishop, or that Peter and Paul - who appointed bishops elsewhere - failed to take on the role or appoint office-holders in Rome is sheer and unsupported speculation. Historicity is clear in the witness of the 100s AD and in the letter of Clement, written only decades after the deaths of the Apostles - in which Clement exercises authority not only as Bishop of Rome but beyond Rome, in Greece - as referenced in the article. It is also historical fact that far from being the mish-mash of disorganised motley rabble alleged by Harmakheru above, the Church of this time rejected and expelled heretical teachers such as Marcion and kept its doctrinal orthodoxy. Xandar 23:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, you wrote "It is also historical fact that far from being the mish-mash of disorganised motley rabble alleged by Harmakheru above, the Church of this time rejected and expelled heretical teachers such as Marcion and kept its doctrinal orthodoxy." On what source do you make this assertion? I think it would be wise to be conservative in using phrases such as "historical fact". It is a historical fact that Ignatius and Irenaeus wrote documents on which we have based some understanding of events which some have accepted as "historical fact". It's only an indisputable "historical fact" if no one disputes it. Church fathers such as Ignatius, Irenaeus and Eusebius are the only documentary evidence we have of certain facts about early Christianity. Just because they wrote it doesn't mean it's true. We should document any significant, notable challenges to the "mainstream" historical narrative without necessarily agreeing that the challenge is valid. (Not our job to establish who is "right"). --Richard (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, it's nice that you can parrot your Church's point of view so well, but sectarian propaganda is not the same thing as objective history. Contrary to what you would like to believe, the New Testament does not show bishops (in the modern sense of that word) being appointed for all the new communities; it shows presbyters being appointed--the equivalent of today's parish priests. The emergence of the monarchical episcopate is agreed by virtually all modern historians to be a later development which began in the East (Ignatius of Antioch being an early example) and propagated to the West over time, with Rome being one of the last cities to make the change. But if you believe that Peter and Paul can be demonstrated to have taken on the role of office-holders in Rome, and that they appointed bishops at Rome to succeed them in that office, then show us the proof--and explain why it is that all the reputable scholars I quoted above flatly disagree with your position. As for Rome being a "disorganized motley rabble" in those days (which isn't quite what I wrote--another example of your penchant for creating straw-man arguments and misrepresenting what others have said), the divisiveness and factionalism of the early Christians in Rome are clearly described by both Paul and Clement in their surviving letters, as I have already pointed out. Finally, dragging Rome's reaction to Marcion into the situation is frankly ridiculous, since (according to Wikipedia!) Marcion first arrived at Rome in the year 142--several generations after Peter and Paul were martyred, and long after the Roman Church had been reconstructed on a firmer foundation following the Neronian persecution. Part of the problem in all this is the Catholic tendency to read later events back into the church of the first century, and this is a perfect example of it. So is your claim that Clement exercised "authority" as "Bishop of Rome" over the church at Corinth. Nowhere in his letter does Clement ever identify himself as a "bishop", and in fact we know from the Shepherd of Hermas that Clement was more like a "corresponding secretary" whose job it was to transmit documents from the Roman church to other churches with which it was in communion--which is exactly what he appears to be doing in this case. To extrapolate from this to a determination that he was some kind of "pope" is to go way beyond the evidence. Harmakheru (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

So it seems that there are at least two different models of what the early Christian community in Rome was like. Harmakheru's model is a more recent model (although with some antecedents in Protestant scholarship) and I think that both models need to be presented with citations to reliable sources to support them. It would be really useful to find a source that actually makes an assertion as to which model is the mainstream model and which is the minority model. Xandar is clearly presenting the Catholic POV but it is one that I assert is also supported by most of mainstream Christianity except for some Protestants (that is, the Orthodox and many mainstream Protestant churches would assert that there was nothing wrong with the institution of elders and bishops in early Christianity but that things started to go really off the rails with the rise of an imperial Papacy). Thus, to assert that the Catholic Church had no direct connection to Peter/Paul but basically appropriated their legacy a couple hundred years after the fact is as much POV historical interpretation as the Catholic view. Our job is not to determine who is "right" but to present all POVs neutrally without giving undue weight to minority POVs. I think our major challenge is to come up with wording that presents the POVs, accurately characterizes which scholars are proponents of each view and indicates which are mainstream POVs and which are minority POVs. --Richard (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I don't know of anyone who is claiming that "the Catholic Church had no direct connection to Peter/Paul but basically appropriated their legacy a couple hundred years after the fact". That is certainly not my position. Clement is writing before the end of the first century, and he already shows the "appropriation" in process; it is well advanced by the time of Ignatius, and complete by Irenaeus. The definitive embrace of Peter and Paul as the "virtual" founders of the Church of Rome after the Neronian disaster is part of what makes it such a solid foundation in subsequent centuries, when it does become a bulwark against heresies of every sort; and the acceptance of Rome's claim in this respect by other churches contributes a great deal to its prestige and authority as these develop over the next several centuries. My objection is to the notion, which some here seem determined to get into the article somehow, that Peter and Paul walked into Rome, either created a Church there out of nothing or else took charge of the Church that was already there as if they were modern bishops taking possession of their See, proceeded to use their unquestioned episcopal authority to knock things into proper shape, and then appointed successors to hold the same powers after their deaths. There is simply no historical basis for any of this; it is a reading back into the first century of developments which did not actually happen until long afterward. Harmakheru (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Harmkheru, thanks for the explanation. I apologize for going off the rails with the "no direct connection to Peter/Paul" and "couple hundred years after the fact" remark... I've been doing a lot of Googling and reading a lot of stuff on websites (Catholic and not so Catholic). I think I was writing too quickly and didn't keep straight in my head what you wrote vs what other people wrote on their websites.

The key here is to stop making this a discussion of "Xandar says X" whereas "Harmakheru says Y". If I put what you wrote into any Wikipedia article, somebody would assuredly slap a {{citation needed}} tag on it. We need to get the points that you made into the mouths of reliable sources. We also need to figure out how to say how to distill all this down to what is absolutely necessary to have in this article and then figure out where to put the gory details for those that want to delve into the question. I took the liberty of inserting the quotations that you provided above in the article on Simon Peter under the section "Connection to Rome". You might check it out and see if you have any suggestions for improvement. At the same time, I think what you wrote above needs to be reflected in History of the Catholic Church, History of the Papacy and even See of Rome. However, we need better sourcing to deflect charges of original research.

--Richard (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the ideas I have put forward on this subject can be found in the books I've listed; I would also add Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, and John Reumann, eds., Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (Geoffrey Chapman, 1974), and probably the relevant articles in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, which is almost always helpful and authoritative. But I am not so much interested in getting my point of view into the article as I am in getting other people's out of it. What I particularly object to is when people try to attach a "many/most historians agree" claim to a sectarian position, cite two or three "sources" which do not actually support their position, and then demand that their claim be allowed to stand unless everyone else can prove them wrong to their satisfaction (which is probably never going to happen, since they already "know" they are right and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to dissuade them). That's not the way real scholarship is done; whatever their motives may be, it has the effect of hijacking Wikipedia into the service of sectarian apologetics, and that should not be allowed. Personally I think it would be better for everyone involved, and certainly better for Wikipedia, to simply leave most of the disputed points out entirely, instead of slugging it out sentence by sentence and word by word for years on end; if people feel the need to raise such issues at all, it seems to me that it is sufficient to state that there are differing viewpoints on the issue and to refer the reader to a "for further reading" section with a balanced list of sources they can consult and use to form their own opinion. The point of an encyclopedia is to give the reader access to a fair statement of the mainstream consensus on a topic. In most cases there is more than enough consensus material to fill up an article without having to get into all the gory details of the things that nobody agrees on. Harmakheru (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Harmakheru, I agree with most of what you wrote with the exception that, while this article is not the place to get into the gory details, I do think the articles such as the ones on Simon Peter and Early Christianity can benefit from a fuller exposition of the issues (not necessarily every detail but at least a broad overview). --Richard (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

One of my occasional interests in Wikipedia is historiography. Sometimes what I find interesting to document is not "historical fact" but the different ways in which history is interpreted by different parties at different times. It seems that there is a bit of evolving historiography regarding this narrative of Peter and Paul and the "founding" of the Church in Rome. I'm less interested in figuring out who is "right" and more interested in documenting which parties are proponents of which theories. After all, we're not supposed to be trying to determine what the truth is. --Richard (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea that Christianity was very diverse in early times isn't "recent". See Walter Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Philadelphia, 1971, translated from the German original published in 1934.

Since people are still arguing about the point, let me give you the 2 additional sources I threatened you with.

Cambridge History of Christianity, volume 1, 2006, page 405: "... Victor ... the lists of bishops guaranteeing apostolic authority seem to have been constructed in the same period."

page 417: "The general consensus among scholars has been that, at the turn of the first and second centuries, local congregations were led by bishops and presbyters whose offices were overlapping or indistinguishable."

page 418: "Probably there was no single 'monarchical' bishop in Rome before the middle of the second century ... and likely later."

Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1997 edition revised 2005, page 211: "It seems that at first the terms 'episcopos' and 'presbyter' were used interchangeably ..."

Peter jackson (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter, what I meant by "more recent" was "in the last 100 years or so". Compared to 2000 years of Church history, that's recent. "Not recent" would be stuff written by Eastern Orthodox bishops in the medieval period or Protestants during the Reformation. I think there were some Protestants of the Reformation period who did challenge papal authority on these grounds but I'd have to go back and research this to be sure. By comparison, Bauer's theories seem to be relatively recent developments.

Thank you for the quotes; I'm going to take the liberty of inserting them in appropriate articles such as Bishop, Presbyter and Early Christianity if they are not already there.

--Richard (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course the diversity of early Christianity can be documented from the New Testament record itself. The first three gospels give a significantly different view of Jesus than the fourth, although ultimately the Church decided to accept all of them (but not without a fight). The Book of Acts, although it attempts to tone things down to a more "eirenic" account, admits conflicts between Hebrews and Hellenists, Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, Pharisaic Christians and non-Pharisaic Christians. The letters of Paul, Peter, John, and Jude all testify to intra-Church conflicts over both leadership and theology, sometimes resulting in schisms and mutual anathemas; and the Book of Revelation tells a similar story. Far from being an ideal model of Christian unity, the first century Church was a battleground of competing personalities and competing ideologies--and according to Clement, it was precisely this kind of conflict which led to the deaths of Peter and Paul at Rome, and the slaughter of a "vast multitude" of Roman Christians at the hand of Nero. Harmakheru (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) If I remember right, Michael Grant's Saint Peter: A Biography, written in the late 1990's, said something to the effect that there is no good reason to doubt Peter's status in Rome as leader. Granted, there isn't a lot of contemporary evidence, but the same thing has been said about the very historicity of Jesus, and few people today argue that as a basis for saying Jesus never existed. I will try to find the exact quote, but there's only one copy that I know of in town and it is circulated as often as not. Now, whether that means that the Roman Church is the one founded by Jesus is still a question, but it does call into question the status of the word "many" in this context. But, I know this is kind of a waste of time without the sourcing, although I don't know how quickly it will be available. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Grant has written popularizations of all of ancient history; he is one step up from a coffee-table book - but here he is seriously out of his field, even if your memory is correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I got Grant's book when it was first published, and there were so many things wrong with it that I got rid of it. He's not a credible source on this topic. Harmakheru (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Some anonymous editor just changed "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the original Christian community founded by Jesus" to "The Church is the continuation ..." Someone want to undo this? Harmakheru (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Harmakheru himself is operating under a presumption that the relatively recent theories of the "development" of episcopacy and "the first century Church was a battleground of competing personalities and competing ideologies", are correct, and that the traditional accounts are false. This can be read in the very assumptions within his posts, and his denigration of any writer having an oposoing view. The solid evidence for these assumptions is scant, and seems to consist of exagerrating the extent and importance of disputes such as those mentioned in the NT. The alleged "overlap" between bishops and presbyters also seems irrelevant to the current argument. At least it is now admitted that the historical line of bishops goes back at least to circa 150 AD, within a lifetime of Peter and Paul. Let's remember that what we are talking about at the moment is the LEAD, not the main text of the article. As such a sentence on historicity needs to be brief, compact, and not smothered with cavills, details and controversies (which 99% of readers will not be concerned with in any event). As such, to present the position in terms of the views of "many historians" is hard to better. The word "many" admits that there are variant views without requiring the need to present such views in the lead, since people interested in this issue will read the relevant article section. All that is needed in the lead is a sentence that states that many historians trace the origin of the Church to the time of Peter. Much of the rest of the debate is irrelevant as regards the LEAD. We do not require to decide whether Peter was ordained bishop in a pointy hat, whether he was "monarchical", whether there was dissent in the Roman Church or not. I would disagree with Harmakheru on many of these points. However, while these may all be interesting topics, they are not for the lead. So lets just look at that one sentence. Xandar 00:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dies annorum nostrorum in ipsis septuaginta anni (Psalms 90:10). 150 AD is within a full life of Domitian, not Nero; and if there were a single Bishop of Rome under Antoninus Pius, that proves no more about the constitution of the Church of Rome in Nero's time than the present Constitution of Italy proves about its government 84 years ago, in 1925.

Insisting on century-old scholarship when modern writing disagrees is not helpful; indeed, the propositions Xandar would contest are older than that, going back to the first applications of source criticism and historiographic analysis to the problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Xandar, you've got it exactly backwards. I myself am a convert to Catholicism; I have a considerable amount of experience teaching scripture and patristics, and I spent more time than I like to remember doing Catholic apologetics. As part of that, I spent years trying to find some way to square the traditional accounts with the surviving documents, and I simply couldn't do it. Many Catholic scholars in the past fifty years have had the same difficulties, which is why they have largely abandoned the traditional view in favor of the modern scholarly consensus which I have been describing. I do not "denigrate any writer having an opposing view"; I simply ask that they know what they are talking about and honestly follow the evidence wherever it leads. I do point it out, rather forcefully at times, when advocates of opposing views refuse to engage the evidence and arguments that are offered against their position, and insist that their point of view must be accepted as correct simply because they say so. I have offered a long list of sourced quotations from reputable scholars in support of my position; your response has been to dismiss major players in the field as "fringe historians" who can't possibly be right simply because they disagree with you. If anyone is "denigrating any writer with an opposing view", it is you, not me.

With respect to the "many historians" gambit you and Nancy keep trying to play, it is unacceptable because it does not accord with the facts and conveys the wrong impression to the reader. First, you have not demonstrated that "many" historians, or for that matter any historians, actually support your position; even the sources you provided simply don't say what you want them to say. Second, the opposite of "many" is "few", and by characterizing the balance this way you leave the impression that the bulk of legitimate historical opinion is on your side of the divide, with only a handful of "fringers" disagreeing. This is simply not the case; if anything, the balance goes very much the other way, with "many historians" flatly disagreeing with you, and only a handful taking the position you want to characterize as the majority opinion. Finally, as you yourself point out, the lead is not the place to put these sorts of "on the one hand, on the other hand" issues where scholarly opinion may be divided. If that sort of issue is going to be raised at all, it should be much deeper into the article, and handled with a much greater level of detail than could possibly be justified in the lead. Harmakheru (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Harmakheru, you have to try to convince us you are correct by giving us decent quotes and sources to oppose ours. All you have done is provide sources that dispute points not mentioned in the article text but you have no sources that object to article text. Talking long and hard does not win editors over to your point of view. You need sources, links, go to googlebooks and do some research. Nothing you have said here wipes away what our sources clearly state. We have National Geographic saying that historians - with an s - looked back after the position of pope was institionalized - well that happened centuries ago. We also provide two examples of modern scholars who agree with the Catholic version of its own history. This is not theology they are stating, this is history, these quotes are in university presses written by scholars - modern historians - who are writing about the history of the Catholic Church. Norman's quote comes from a section entitled "Catholic Origins". We have to respect their views and respect Reader's right to know that "many" historians have viewed Catholic history this way. Not to do so would clearly be unencyclopedic. NancyHeise ^talk 02:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, Hamakheru really does seem to know what he's talking about, and certainly knows the difference between a scholarly and a non-scholarly text. (I advise against your continuing to push National Geographic for instance.) If I were you, I'd work with him rather than against him. Editing on Wikipedia isn't, or shouldn't be, a competition. When it becomes antagonistic, the articles generally suffer, as is attested by the long and involved history of this particular article. So enough of this "yours" and "ours." Collaborative editing is the way to go, and Hamakheru is clearly a good person with whom to collaborate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JB and Harmakheru, but I disagree. Our sources say what they say. No amount of arguing is going to change the fact that they say what they say. All we have done is put the info on the page. National Geographic is not a Catholic POV source, perhaps some would argue it is the opposite. The overview it provides is supplemented by two other modern scholars who also agree. I can not ignore this and I haven't. No one has asked me to until now. If there are some bad reviews of our sources - let's see them. Hamakheru has suggested there are scholars with opposing viewpoints - great - we have mentioned this in the article text already. He just keeps telling us the same thing over and over and it is something we have already covered. I can't cover it more than it is already without violating WP:undue. NancyHeise ^talk 04:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy wrote "National Geographic is not a Catholic POV source". This assertion would carry more weight if the NG book were a publication which espoused a viewpoint that is the official position of the National Geographic Society or had been vetted for historical accuracy by National Geographic. However, if it is, as Harmakheru characterizes it, a compendium of POV writings written by proponents of various religions, the neutrality and objectivity of the NGS cannot be invoked in support of those POV writings. It appears that the book is designed to present a wide spectrum of POVs from the perspective of various global religions. Let us not try to make it into something that it is not. --Richard (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I am well aware of how to do research--enough to know that yanking out-of-context snippets out of Google Books is not "research", it is "prooftexting". If you want to understand what a book or article is saying, you generally need to have the entire book or article in front of you, either online or in hardcopy, so you can see the entire context. Then you have to actually consider that context, and not ignore it in search of little snippets that appear to say what you want but, in context, may not. This is the problem with all three of the citations you offer for your statement about "many historians"--in context, none of them says what you what it to say.

The Norman quote does come from a section entitled "Catholic Origins"--but if you back up to the previous section, you will see that the "Catholic Origins" section is immediately preceded by a statement that what follows is "a few paragraphs on how Catholics understand the essentials of their Faith." (p. 9.) Thus, by the author's own admission, the statements you quote are not objective history, but Catholic confessional beliefs. They are thus admissible as a scholarly summary of "what Catholics believe", but not as a scholarly summary of what is objectively true as a matter of history. You can't simply treat these two very different kinds of statements as if they were both making the same kinds of claims. They aren't.

The Wilken quote from the National Geographic coffee-table book is of the same order. Wilken is not writing an objective history of what actually happened; he is telling us about what Catholics believe happened. You can tell this by his unqualified statements about Jesus walking on water (p. 274) and being "the promised Messiah" (p. 276), which is not the kind of thing that any reputable historian would write as historical fact. As for his statement that "once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome", the "historians" he is talking about are not modern academic historians, who almost universally reject the idea of Peter as the first pope. He is talking about Catholic ecclesiastical historians, who are reading later institutions back into the first century in support of a confessional position.

As for your third reference, the one from Derrett, he says nothing at all about the Catholic Church being founded by Jesus; he implies only that in his opinion Christianity was in some sense founded by Jesus, which is not at all the same thing--and later on he also indicates that in his view Jesus would have rejected major elements of Catholicism, including its hierarchical organization and its priesthood. And he says nothing at all about what "many historians" believe on this matter--only that "some" hold one view and "others" hold another, which lends no support to the sort of quantification you are trying to impose.

So when your citations are examined closely, none of them actually end up supporting the statement you are using them to support--which is very "unencyclopedic" indeed. Harmakheru (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You are the one taking things out of context. I will cite this example: Norman's book, a university press, is discussing the history of the Roman Catholic Church (part of its title). The book begins with an introduction followed by a section entitled Catholic Origins. Separate sentences discuss Catholic belief in the first paragraph. These are not intertwined with statements of historical fact which follow in the second paragraph. The statement we use to support our article text is in this second paragraph which states " The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime. .....It was Jesus who sent out seventy missioners to declare his message, as the biblical accounts record, and who commissioned twelve men to be his immediate representatives in the campaigne for universal salvation. The letters of St. Paul, in the New Testament, occasionally employ military symbolism to convey the sense of militancy that this task evoked. It was urgent work, ..." Please provide some link to some source that says this is not discussing history but strictly theology as you allege. You have no source that states this and I can not just take your word for it - the passage clearly lists the authors reasons for stating that Jesus was the founder of the Church. Also, please point me to the Wikipedia policy that defines "coffee table book" - I point you to WP:RS and WP:reliable source examples that uphold National Geographic and its scholarly authors whose work is edited and reviewed by more scholars and experts. Derrett stands on his own, I have provided a sufficiently long quote in the ref to show he is giving us an overview of scholarly views, including his own, that supports article text summarizing these views. NancyHeise ^talk 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, do you actually have Norman's book? If so, then please place it in front of you and open it. Turn to page 9, which is the last page of the introduction. Look at the last paragraph on that page. That paragraph ends: "The book begins with a few paragraphs on how Catholics understand the essentials of their Faith. This is, surely, itself essential in understanding something of the manner in which the Church has presented its priorities." That ends the introduction, and prepares us for what follows in the next chapter. The next chapter begins on page 11. The first paragraph, which we have been led by the author to believe is the start of "a few paragraphs on how Catholics understand the essentials of their Faith", begins, "After the Resurrection ..." OK, that's one paragraph. Now move on to the second paragraph, which is still within the range of the "few paragraphs" we were promised. It begins, "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime." There is the statement you want us to rely on--right smack in the middle of the "few paragraphs" which the author himself describes as expressing "how Catholics understand the essentials of their Faith". It couldn't be any clearer than that. Your own source explicitly states that the sentence you are quoting is a statement of "how Catholics understand their Faith", which means it is not intended as a "statement of historical fact". Can you really not comprehend this? Harmakheru (talk)

I suppose, if the author were not a Catholic convert, I would agree with you. He is speaking as a Catholic historian expressing what Catholics believe to be the origin of the Church. He does not say that those views are invalid historically. He also gives us the historical documents that support this view as I quoted for you above. Just as National Geographic did not gloss over the fact that there are many Catholic historians who trace the origins of the Church to Jesus' consecration of Peter, neither have we. You are asking us to ignore a common, well known fact agreed by many historians, more than a few of them priest professors of Catholic history. Please provide a link to something that says this view is less valid historically than the opposing view. Please provide a link to some policy on Wikipedia that would allow me to ignore the Catholic view including those of Catholic historians. NancyHeise ^talk 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the validity of the National Geographic book, I assume you are referring to this: "A recent trend is a proliferation of specialized encyclopedias on historical topics. These are edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles, and then review each article for quality control." But the question then arises, how much "review" and "quality control" is being exercised by the editors? In this case, as I have already pointed out (not that it did any good), the primary editors have no recognized expertise in the area of Christianity; and the other members of the Board of Advisers are Desmond Tutu and his daughter, two specialists on Hinduism, two specialists on Buddhism, a specialist on Islam, and a rabbi. So where are the "experts" who are supposed to "review each article for quality"? They do not exist. And that may explain why this book, which you tout as your primary source on this subject, only has three citations in Google Scholar, as opposed to the hundreds of citations which GS reports for the authorities I'm relying on. Harmakheru (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS does not give us a number of cites on Google scholar to tell us how many is enough. The fact that the work is written by a professor of history and published by a National Geographic as their premier choice to explain Christianity is enough of an endorsement needed to satisfy Wikipedia policy. Further, WP:NPOV requires us to include both points of view - thus we have to include the Catholic point of view. I offer these random selections found on Google books to show that other scholars throughout history agree page 103 of this source[9] page 45 of this source: [10] Honestly, I think it is amazing that you are challenging me on this, I can't believe there are people who do not know that historians - both modern and otherwise - agree with the Church's take on the history of its own origins. NancyHeise ^talk 05:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh and here's another one that also supports the "many" historians point of view see [11] NancyHeise ^talk 05:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, this is truly pathetic. I can't believe you are offering a Catholic apologetic tract--and one published in 1840, at that--as a legitimate scholarly source about the state of the debate today. Once again, you're just cherry-picking prooftexts out of Google Books without any comprehension of what does and does not constitute valid scholarship, or even whether what you're citing actually does support your position. Anything that looks on first glance like it says what you want it to say, you trot it out as if it were golden. This is not how real scholarship is done. Harmakheru (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me? Catholicism by Richard P. McBrien, quoted by Nancy above is a major work of scholarship, reprinted several times, and which has been criticised for NOT following Vatican mores. The review from Library Journal states "Throughout, McBrien is faithful to tradition and to contemporary scholarship; he does not hesitate to raise probing questions and to suggest needed changes in teaching and practices. Human existence, God, Jesus Christ, the Church, the sacraments, Christian morality, and Christian spirituality all receive intensive treatment; Orthodox and Protestant views receive respectful consideration. Essential for all libraries, including those with earlier editions." Other reviews state: "No less indispensable now than was its predecessor." (Nicholas Lash, Cambridge University.) .... "Now McBrien has even surpassed his previous achievement, and has ensured the continued service of this modern classic." (Thomas H. Groome, Boston College) ...."The clearest and most competent guide in the English language to the Catholic Church's origins, teaching, traditions, and developments." (Gerald O'Collins, S.J., Gregorian University). Nancy also quoted "The Roman Catholic church: its origins and nature" By John F. O'Grady is also a serious modern historical view. Not only writers that agree with you constitute scholarship.

However once again I have to say, lets see something more constructive from the detractors of the existing text. All I have heard so far is that we abandon giving the reader all information about the historic origin of the Church. That is not really a policy. Xandar 00:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Read what I wrote: "a Catholic apologetic tract ... published in 1840." Was McBrien's book published in 1840? If not, then obviously that's not the one I'm referring to. Was O'Grady's? If not, then obviously that's not the one I'm referring to. The one I'm referring to is the first one on Nancy's list: The pillar and foundation of truth, by Giovanni Battista Pagani, published in 1840. That this is a Catholic apologetic tract and not a work of scholarship is evidenced by the fact that the book itself summarizes its points under two heads: "1. That Christ established in his Church a visible and infallible authority to preserve his doctrine, and teach it to mankind until the consummation of the ages. 2. That such authority continues, and will continue for ever, in the Catholic Church." That Nancy can seriously offer such a source as proof that "other scholars throughout history agree" with her claims, is in itself sufficient proof that she simply can't tell the difference between scholarship and apologetics. Apparently neither can you. And that, in a nutshell, is the whole problem with what's going on here. Harmakheru (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Middle Ages

I would like to develope this section with some more info on the Knights Templar. That page is WP:FA, maybe we can take a look at some of the references there and put something into this article about the developement of banking. The Church also forbade Christians from lending money for interest (what they called usury) although some monasteries did and this resulted in the Jews going into that field. One of our FAC reviewers criticized the article for not including something about this. Any objections? If not I will get to work on it as I have time. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 04:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Nancy, I object. On a number of occasions, you and Xandar have objected to discussing the actions and attitudes of Catholics vs. those of the Church itself. Personally, I think it is valid to discuss the actions and attitudes of Catholics to the extent that these were fostered and encouraged by the Church. However, as you and Xandar have pointed out on a number of occasions, it is often hard to prove such a linkage.

The Knights Templar were Catholics but they were not an official part of the Catholic Church but rather a force independent of it. The most that I can see useful for this article would be a brief mention of the role of Pope (I forget his name) in possibly encouraging the suppression of the Knights Templar. However, as you and Xandar often like to differentiate between the actions of the Catholic Church and those of Catholic monarchs, even the suppression was done by the King of France and other monarchs and not by the Church itself.

--Richard (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems a bit premature to object without having seen Nancy's proposal. The Templars were more than independent Catholic actors. They were a monastic order officially endorsed by the Church at the Council of Troyes and granted special privileges in at least one papal bull. In any event, they can hardly be characterized as mere Catholics acting as a group but outside the constraints of the institutional Church. Let's see what is suggested and evaluate it then. --anietor (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Richard's point above - we must be consistent in how we present information here. I also question whether the Templars were important enough to the history of the Church to justify much space. If we're beefing up the Middle Ages section in particular, it needs more information on the Church's influence in European politics; that is much more significant than the Templars. Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Templars were definitely part of the Church, and their suppression was forced at swordpoint by Philip IV of France. I think a sentence or two on banking might be a useful addition. Xandar 00:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whore of Babylon

Since we seem constrained to operate under Xandar and Nancy's rules--i.e., "I found a snippet in Google Books that says what I want, and that's enough to satisfy Wikipedia rules"--I propose that we add "Whore of Babylon" alongside "Roman Catholic Church" as one of the recognized names of the Catholic Church. Here's my source: [12]

True, it's a bit dated, but it's got footnotes and everything, and one of the footnotes says exactly what I need it to say: "Rome is not the universal Church, nor any sound part thereof: but the whore of Babylon, the seat of Antichrist." Lots and lots of people have believed this for centuries, and we have no right to censor a common, well known fact agreed by many historians, more than a few of them pastor professors of church history. WP:NPOV requires us to include all points of view, so I assume there will be no objections to this proposal from the Catholic side. Harmakheru (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, now, Harmakheru... there's no need for that. You're just getting pointy. I understand your frustration but let's not get ridiculous. --Richard (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My proposal (which of course was not meant to be taken seriously) is no more ridiculous than Nancy's attempt to prove that Jesus founded the Catholic Church by citing an apologetic tract written by some Catholic priest in the nineteenth century. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; if she can stoop to that level of silliness and get away with it, why can't I?

As it happens, I teach at a world-class research university with tens of thousands of students, and thousands of top-notch faculty, drawn from all over the world; our people are on the cutting edge of almost every discipline, and their findings make the news several times each week. Our students are always asking if they can use Wikipedia, but most of my colleagues have such contempt for it that they simply forbid their students to use it. Until now I have been somewhat more lenient in my classes, but after my experiences of the past several days I am going to have to re-think my position. The notion of collaborative editing is fine as long as all the players are genuinely willing to collaborate; but apparently all it takes to derail that process is for a couple of determined ideologues to park themselves on a subject area and refuse to budge no matter what. Their sources may be worthless and their arguments absurd, but short of spending vast amounts of time and energy in agonizing procedural battles there is apparently nothing that can be done about them. Maybe some people have nothing better to do with their lives than to play these sorts of games, but I'm not one of them. Harmakheru (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if you do try the "procedural battles" there's no guarantee you'd succeed. Wikipedia simply has no effective system for enforcing its contents policies. It's a matter of luck whether you can get them observed in any particular case. That's why I stopped editing articles a year ago & confine myself to occasional comments. Peter jackson (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Peter jackson)

Unfortunately, I agree with what Peter wrote.

I'm sorry you feel that way although I acknowledge that you have every right to do so. Wikipedia is very informative. As I like to say, "I learn a lot from Wikipedia... some of it is even true." If I were you, I would advise your students that Wikipedia articles must always be taken with a grain of salt. The ultimate responsibility for determining the truth value of an assertion made by a Wikipedia article lies with the reader. Your experience here should give you ample proof that, at any given time one or more assertions in an article may be suspect. As for "agonizing procedural battles", all I can say is "you ain't seen nothing yet". Getting your way on a Wikipedia article can be extremely time-consuming. I could hope for more collaboration and collegiality but sometimes it's there and sometimes it ain't. I hope you will continue to contribute where you can as your input so far has been very valuable. --Richard (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I really do think this section is typical of Harmakheru's dramatics and his mispresentation of the situation. He has come to the page adding to someone else's objection to the usage of a sentence in the lead, and then changed the basis of the argument to claiming tht historians deny that the Catholic Church is indeed the Church founded in Rome at the time of Peter. I have asked him and other objectors to come up with suggestions for a referenced sentence that covers the historic origin as they see it. I even backed splitting the current sentence in two as Richard suggested, to aid this - but we have had nothing in response but attempts to rubbish various sources used in the article, and suggestions to eliminate the information we have, and not mention the topic! I don't think that is an improvement. The idea that wanting a clear statement about the historic origin of the Church in the article can be compared to the discussion of a purely theological concept like the whore of Babylon, is astonishing. Xandar 00:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Testing the validity of sources is not "rubbishing" them--it is what real scholars do. Real scholars do not allow someone to just offer up anything that suits their fancy and say, "See, I have a source!" Nancy apparently thinks that a Catholic apologetic tract from 1840 constitutes a reliable source simply because Google Books turned it up when she searched for the words "Jesus founded the Catholic Church". And indeed the book she cites does make that claim--but in the same paragraph it goes on to state as equally certain that Jesus "appointed in his Church a visible, perpetual, and infallible authority." Are you now going to insist that we add that to the article as well, simply because Nancy has a "source" that says this? Your whole approach to this issue is unacceptable from a scholarly standpoint. In your mind it is an established fact that Jesus founded the Catholic Church, and so that becomes the default "truth" which everyone else must agree to unless they can disprove it. But this is not how scholarship works, and it's not supposed to be how Wikipedia works. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the ones who dispute it. If you want to put something in the article, especially something that other people will disagree with, then you have to provide a credible source to back it up. Apologetic tracts from 1840 don't do the job. Neither do statements taken out of their context and pressed into duty to support positions that their authors did not intend to support. Neither do confessional claims yanked out of their context and gussied up to look like historical facts. And so far, that's all you've got. Harmakheru (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting again...

Without disagreeing with anything that Harmakheru has asserted, I am now wondering if we haven't gone off the rails with the discussion in the section immediately above. I have rearranged the flow in the "Origin and Mission" section so as to provide a more logical and chronological presentation of ideas. I have also worked to place citations immediately after the assertion that they support.

Please review my edit and indicate whether this addresses the concerns that we have been discussing.

--Richard (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. You still haven't addressed Harmakheru's point that the Norman quotation has been taken out of context, or mine that in any case it's talking about the Pope, not the Catholic Church. Peter jackson (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Karanacs' recent edit may have resolved these. We may have an irrelevant source or two now, but I do not see anything to dispute in what the text now states; it claims to describe what Roman Catholic doctrine is, and does so. The only quibble I see is the claim that all doctrine derives from the seven General Councils, and that's not worth greater length. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I only removed the bit about historians from the lead, as I think consensus is fairly well-established now that this doesn't belong in the lead and is inaccurate. I think, though, that Richard is discussing the text in the Origins and Mission section. Karanacs (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. The origin of the Church belongs in the lead. Xandar 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be these quotations;

• The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime.
• ... the activities of Jesus, and of Paul of Tarsus, cannot be understood without a knowledge of the peculiar world in which they operated. Some believe that Christianity was not founded by Jesus, called Christ, but rather by Peter with such of his associates who were apostles after Jesus's anastasis, which is usually called 'resurrection'. The faith of Peter, and the subsequent faith of Paul, are the rocks upon which the early churches were founded. Their psychosociological position at any rate must be known if one is to understand their proceedings. Others, this writer included, take Jesus as the inspiring force of the church.

The first is a theological claim, and apparently presented as such in the source; the second is about the origins of Christianity. One of the problems of this article is the inability of some editors to see the difference. I have applied your sweeping precedent; the flow seems to work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a strange determination among some contributors to try to deny the virtually incontrovertible fact that the Church of Peter's lifetime in Rome continued on to be the (Roman) Catholic Church of today. That's not theology, it's simple fact. Xandar 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If so, then why has it been so hard for you and Nancy to come up with examples of modern mainstream historians who clearly say this? If it really is a "virtually incontrovertible fact", then it should be a simple matter to find plenty of incontrovertible support for it. An hour's work in a good research library--or even on Google Books--ought to do the trick. Instead, you offer us stuff from National Geographic and nineteenth-century apologetic tracts. To those who don't already agree with your position, the fact that you two are having so much trouble coming up with credible sources to support your position suggests that you really don't have any--and perhaps that no such sources exist. Harmakheru (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

on consensus and the lead

Xandar, "facts" need sources. Numerous sources have been presented to show that the statement in the lead is false or biased. No decent sources have been presented to back up the claim. Furthermore, you are editing against consensus. It is quite clear in the range of discussions on this page that you and Nancy are the only editors who believe that this information belongs in the lead worded as is. On the other hand, 7 editors have expressed concern with this (me, Richard, PMAnderson, Harmakheru, Peter Jackson, Afterwriting, and Gimmetrow. This is a very clear consensus against including this information in the lead. I am removing this information one last time. It should not be re-added until it is obvious on the talk page that consensus has changed. Karanacs (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the edit-warring continues, I will ask an uninvolved admin to review the situation. That may lead to protection of the page or blocking of users. Karanacs, as much as I agree with you about the consensus running against Xandar and NancyHeise, I should comment that nobody's hands are clean in an edit-war. It takes two (or more) to edit war. My recommendation is that you not become the "enforcer" of the consensus as it makes you look no less guilty than Xandar. --Richard (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and have no intention of further working with this section of the lead. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would suggest either an RfC, which would be problematic because of the potential of several Catholics unbalancing the !votes, or adopting some sort of phrasing similar to that of Britannica, saying that the elements associated with the Catholic church seem to have existed from the early years of Christianity, but leaving alone the question as to whether those elements are sufficient to say that the Church itself can be traced back through them to those days. The exact phrasing would still be problematic. My own best guess, and it's only a first draft, would be something like, "Catholics trace the foundation of the church to Jesus himself. Most modern historians, however, while acknowledging that the elements of the church can be traced back to the beginnings of Christianity, stop short of saying that the presence of those elments is sufficient to say that the Church itself can be traced to those times." Feel free to suggest alternate forms if you think they would be preferable. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would leave out the to produce while acknowledging that elements of the church can be traced back to the beginnings of Christianity; talk about "the elements" will lead some readers to suppose that we are discussing communion in both kinds, and lead others to argue about what the elements are, something about which there is profound disagreement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would urge that we leave the lead as it was after Karanacs deleted the bit about "a view shared by many historians". As currently written, it's not wrong although it accomplishes that by being silent on what historians think of what the Catholic Church believes (or used to believe). Instead, I think we should devote our energies to accurately depicting both the current and past views of historians in the "Origins and mission" section. Once we can agree on what the detailed exposition should say, then writing the summary for the lead should be a lot easier. --Richard (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would advise against an RFC at this time because the text of "Origin and mission" is so much in flux. An RFC is more likely to be successful if you can distill the issue down to a specific question which can be answered "Yes"/"No" or "A"/"B"/"C". Once again, let's hash out what we think "Origin and mission" should say. If we get to a point where we are stuck on a few narrow questions, then let's consider issuing an RFC. --Richard (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Stating the lead is "false and biased" is outrageous. Quoting a few liberal revisionists to try to deny historical fact is an extreme of silliness. The simple fact that the detractors from the information being presented on the historical origins of the Church have been unable, after repeated challenges, to produce a referenced sentence supporting their viewpoint, shows how tendentious it is. I'm sorry that some people don't like certain authors, and wish to deny the fact that the Church is directly and historically continupus with the Church headed by Peter and Paul in Rome, but we cannot censor that information. I have tried to get objectors to constructively work out some sort of compromise on the wording, but certain people just seem to want to eliminate information that they don't like. No consensus has been developed to remove the stated information from the lead, since no such question has been put. All we have seen is sniping at sources. Xandar 21:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, multiple sources have been put forth that specifically state that historians (plural) do not agree with this point. Specifically, see Talk:Catholic Church#O'Grady (and others) vs. Xandar and Nancy and Talk:Catholic Church#McBrien vs. Xandar and Nancy on the Origins of the Church below. Also, there is pretty clear evidence here that the sources cited in the lead do not reflect what the lead says. Can you provide any sources that actually state that "many historians agree" that the Catholic Church beliefs about its origins are historical fact? Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And #towards a resolution, above. The sections Karanacs cites chiefly discuss two authors which Xandar and Nancy have brought into the discussion; I have myself quoted an eminent Catholic theologian who says explicitly that nothing can be said with certainty about Peter's stay in Rome other than that he suffered martyrdom. Is Father Castelot a "liberal revisionist"?

The following is core policy: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.... The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. We are not the Polish diet; we have no liberum veto; no editor is entitled to insist that unsourced information remain in an article by refusing to join a consensus.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No. We're getting some shady work here. A) We have not had a consensus formed to remove the information. Posting five enormous posts per day shows one has a great deal of time, but it does not constitute the formation of a consensus. B) We have had several people chiming in and challenging references for different reasons. Nancy supplied some other references, and (as I predicted) these were immediately rubbished too. That's why I was more interested in trying to find a sentence that people felt they COULD reference. However this challenge has been ignored. Nancy has not even had time to respond to the claims against her latest references before people leap in to try to ignore them! That is not the way to proceed. Xandar 22:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed there is shady work:

• There is no need for consensus to remove information which has no unambiguous reliable source; there never has been.
• This is a wiki. If Nancy responds and convinces anyone, any action can be reversed.

And I should like to see an answer to Mamlujo's question below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has not participated in this dispute perhaps I could offer some input. No doubt, as Xandar maintains, there are many scholars who assert that the Catholic Church is the same church founded by Jesus and headed by Peter - I have read them. Karanacs and Septentrionalis point out that many scholars, Catholics included, do not agree. This is also true. Still, this does not refute Xandar's point that many (not most or all) hold the position. Although, Xandar's position is factually correct, it would seem he would have to have a source which says that, otherwise is merely synthesis. My feeling is why does the article need to say that many scholars hold the position. Why not just say the Church holds that position. Mamalujo (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have warned Xandar against edit warring. At the moment, the sentiment of the community of editors on this page seems to be running 5-2 against inclusion of the text in question. That suggests that the text should be removed, if only temporarily, until a consensus can be formed for replacement text. As has been pointed out, the article is not harmed by the removal of the text and it can be re-inserted when and if a consensus can be formed to do so It may be that an RFC may ultimately be necessary to help resolve this question.

I am going to revert Xandar's edit and reinstate Karanacs' deletion of the text in question. I enjoin all editors to refrain from edit warring. Everything in Wikipedia can be undone. If a consensus ultimately decides to reinstate the disputed text or some variant of it, it's no big deal that the text was temporarily deleted from the article. If no such consensus is formed then insistence on keeping the text in question is against Wikipedia policies of sourcing and consensus. The next occurrence of edit warring will result in a report to WP:AN/EW.

--Richard (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I check in here every once in a while to try to help...but if you guys and gals are reduced to quibbling over the use of "primarily", "usually", and "often"...(all of which are vague adverbs and should not be included in this article if it ever hopes to become Featured, anyway)...then there is no point grinding over theological and historical issues that really matter. Most of the detail for the first 3 centuries of the church, for example, should be in the realm of another article with a summary of that article and its highlights used here. Church historians will maintain an unbroken line of Popes from Peter through Benedict XVI. Atheists, agnostics, and protestants will suggest otherwise and point to flimsy written records, etc. The size constraints of this article prevent all sides of the issue from being properly represented, and there is merit to all points of view. But if we're still quibbling over which vague adverb to use when talking about the name...we're going to get nowhere, fast. Or slow...--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is little hope of it deserving FA in any case; but usually is a claim about all the millions of documents the church has produced; it cannot be substantiated by quoting half-a-dozen which use one name or the other. It requires a secondary source; which (if it is true), should not be difficult.

But there is a far more serious problem with this post. This is not a contest between good Catholic history and "atheists, agnostics, and protestants"; it is a context between good history - from all sources, including Roman Catholics, who have been outstanding in Christian historiography - and writing which confuses historical and theological claims. The apostolic succession is a theological claim; many hold it who are not Roman Catholic; but granting it does not involve any assertion as to what office Saint Peter (or Linus or Clement) actually held, when, and who consecrated him to it. There is no sufficient evidence on that, and a historian will say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth quoting the New Catholic Encyclopedia on Saint Peter, after a summary of the Gospels and of Acts:

It is quite certain that Peter spent his last years in Rome. The first of the two epistles ascribed to him was written from "Babylon," a code name for Rome. It is, however, impossible to say how long he stayed there. An old tradition that he spent 25 years in Rome is quite unacceptable. All that can be said with certainty is that he went to Rome and was martyred there.

Is Fr. John J. Castelot, Sacrae Theologiae Doctor, an atheist, an agnostic, or a Protestant? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My point, exactly! Thanks, Pam!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed that one of the statements Castelot does not make (and continues to not make in the rest of the section) is what Peter did in Rome, before his martyrdom? (He quotes Papias that St. Mark's Gospel is St. Peter's preaching, but does not endorse it.) Other scholars, including Roman Catholics, may well differ on the authenticity of 1 Peter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, one point of view (but not the only one) that should be included (in an article about the Early Church...which should then be summarized and brought here). FWIW, will you want to include what he says in Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church, which he translated sometime after the Catholic Encyclopedia entry? Keep on being productive...next we can hash out the meaning of the word:"is".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the dominant and consensus point of view on Saint Peter (among scholars of all faiths): we do not know; there is no credible source. (If this is about 1 Peter, I agree it does not belong here; but heither POV on it is "the Catholic position", either.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Historically you are right...there is only so much we know from written history.--Mike Here is the "Catholic" position, from the Catechism:

"When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them." Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another." "The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope." "The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403- Μολὼν λαβέ 23:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this paragraph is well worth a close look. Note how carefully it is worded, and the issues it tiptoes around. Not a word about the length of Peter's stay in Rome or his martyrdom there (or even whether he was ever in Rome at all). Not a word about his alleged exercise of the episcopal office there, or his co-founding of the Roman Church. Not a word about how any of these things constitute the basis of the Pope's claim to be Peter's successor. The very silence of this paragraph on so many issues that used to be considered central to papal authority is itself eloquent testimony to the huge shift in Catholic thought on this subject in the last fifty years. Harmakheru (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. What it does say is that Peter was head of the College of Apostles, and that the authority of the present Pope and of (properly ordained) bishops descends from the Apostles. Neither is a purely historical statement - the first being in part a question of definition and of the interpretation of Christ's words. The second does not require any specific chain of descent, merely that there was one - like St. George (again), who, when, and where is known to God, but not to us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me make clear my position: the article should certainly include (as it does) that these two claims are the Roman Catholic position; they are. It should certainly not claim or suggest that they are historically impossible or unlikely - they are not (a lack of written evidence is neither, and can be dealt with here by silence).

And I think that's the bare minimum of what should be required here. This also goes back to the whole naming convention of CC vs RCC, in that it's the Petrine Primacy that gives the name RCC. I think we're on the same track as far as that goes. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Other Christians will disagree with the two claims insofar as they are theology, but that should be discussed in their articles, not here.

Please note that the presbyter-bishops discussed by O'Grady are perfectly compatible with apostolic succession; indeed, they help make it more practical in the first century. A new bishop in Rome could be consecrated by the other Roman bishops; there was no need to bring in bishops from Naples or Corinth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I could get to Noort's Dogmatic Theology with some difficulty; others will not have such access. Can you quote or summarize? (Catalogs suggest Castelot translated it in 1955, btw. - beware of reprint dates.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

McBrien vs. Xandar and Nancy on the Origins of the Church

Earlier on this page, Xandar has argued that Richard McBrien's book Catholicism is "a major work of scholarship" which we should take seriously, and Nancy alleges that it supports her position that "Jesus founded the Catholic Church." Well, let's see what McBrien actually says.

McBrien does take up the issue on p. 34, and in his discussion he does use the words, "The Bible also tells us how Jesus founded a Church and invested it with full authority to teach, rule, and sanctify", and further, "The Catholic Church alone can trace its history back to the time of the apostles and to the Lord himself." But again, context is everything. He precedes these words by explaining that what he is about to present is "Catholic apologetics" whose "argument was constructed as follows". He then gives the apologetic argument ... and rejects it as inadequate. So what Nancy and Xandar are adducing as support for their position is actually, when read in context, a rejection of it.

So what does McBrien positively say on the subject? For this we have to turn to much later in the book, where he explicitly asks and answers the hard questions:

"Did Jesus intend to found a Church? The answer is "No" if by found we mean some direct, explicit, deliberate act by which Jesus established a new religious organization. The answer is "Yes" if by found we mean "lay the foundations for" the Church in various indirect ways. In this second case, it is preferable to speak of the Church as having its origin in Jesus rather than as having been founded by Jesus." (p. 577) And just to hammer the point home, he begins the next section with the title, 'Jesus did not "found" the Church'.

Well, that's pretty clear. And it offers no support whatever to the position being pushed by Xandar and Nancy as an "incontrovertible fact" which absolutely must be in the article.

It should also be noted that McBrien repeatedly cites Raymond Brown (more than a dozen times by my count) as one of the authorities he relies on and recommends to others--the same Raymond Brown whom Xandar dismissed earlier as the "odd fringe historian". Harmakheru (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This again seems to be your interpretation of what the book states. You find passages you don't like and then try to muddy the waters by either claiming that these are apologetics, or claim they are contradicted by other passages you select. However this book is not my source. I was merely defending it against attacks. I don't have it, so can't deal with Harmakheru's detailed claims. Much as I would like it, where I live I do not have access to a university Library, so must use slower methods than some here. Xandar 22:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the book, including the passage Nancy would cite, is available on Google Books. McBrien says explicitly that he is presenting an argument used in "twentieth century Catholic apologetics", not one he supports. (emphasis his) In the immediate context, he rejects it as theologically erroneous; but you are free to see whether he supports it as history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Google books says "No preview available" to me. Xandar 22:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Then wait 24 hours, ask for a different edition, or try interlibrary loan - a wonderful institution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The book is also on Amazon, with a preview available there, including the page (577) where McBrien flatly states that "Jesus did not found the Church", so you can easily verify the quote for yourself. This is not, as you claim, my "interpretation" of McBrien--it is simply what McBrien himself explicitly says. As for your claim that you were merely "defending" the book from "attacks", in fact there were no such attacks; as I've already pointed out to you, the book I "attacked" was not McBrien's but the 1840 one by Pagani. Harmakheru (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

O'Grady (and others) vs. Xandar and Nancy

As with McBrien, so with John O'Grady. Xandar assures us that O'Grady's The Roman Catholic church: its origins and nature is "also a serious modern historical view". OK, let's see what O'Grady says about the issues we've been discussing.

On p. 140 he says, "Various communities would have had a group of presbyter-bishops functioning as leaders of the local church. Eventually this evolved into a monarchical episcopacy in certain cities--e.g., Antioch may have had such a structure before other cities such as Rome. Finally the Church developed into the present structure of one bishop having a college of presbyters around him."

On p. 17 he says, "The monarchical episcopacy, however, probably developed in other churches in Christianity before it took shape in Rome."

On p. 18 he says, "Eventually, Rome followed the example of other christian communities and structured itself after the model of the empire with one presbyter bishop in charge ..."

On p. 146 he says, "The emergence of a single bishop in Rome probably did not arise until the middle of the second century. Linus, Cletus and Clement were probably prominent presbyter-bishops but not necessarily monarchical bishops. That Peter was the first bishop of Rome and founded the Christian church there can be traced back no earlier than the third century."

On p. 139 he says, "Whether Paul actually ordained or established presbyter-bishops in the churches he founded remains uncertain."

On p. 143 he says, "The study of the New Testament offers no proof that Jesus established the papacy nor even that he established Peter as the first bishop of Rome."

Does any of this sound familiar? Harmakheru (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the discussion above, Nancy wrote: "Just as National Geographic did not gloss over the fact that there are many Catholic historians who trace the origins of the Church to Jesus' consecration of Peter, neither have we. You are asking us to ignore a common, well known fact agreed by many historians ... Please provide a link to something that says this view is less valid historically than the opposing view."

OK, try these:

From The Church Triumphant: A History of Christianity up to 1300 by E. Glenn Hinson (Mercer University Press, 1995), p. 14:

Since the late nineteenth century scholars have debated whether Jesus should be regarded as the founder of Christianity or only as the "presupposition" for it. ... Such questions cannot be answered easily. Few scholars today would defend the view held since primitive times that Jesus founded the church essentially as it now exists save for growth and development.

The most Hinson will grant is that "it does seem important to insist that Christianity has some connections not merely with the resurrection experience but with what antedated it." Fair enough. But positing "some connections" between Jesus and Christianity is not the same thing as saying that "Jesus founded the Church"--much less that he founded the Catholic Church, and that he did so through the "consecration" of Simon Peter. (Hinson, by the way, has a doctorate from Oxford and also studied at the Gregorianum in Rome and The Ecumenical Institute for Advanced Studies in Jerusalem.)

From Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians in a Divided Church by Thomas P. Rausch (Order of St. Benedict/Liturgical Press, 2000), p. 45:

[Karl Keating] refutes ... argument on the nonexistence of the early papacy simply by referring to the tradition's naming Linus as the second pope ... but the emergence of the Petrine ministry is far more complex. Rome did not have a monoepiscopal government until close to A.D. 150. Nor should Keating take as historical without further question Tertullian's statement that Clement was ordained by Peter, something that would be questioned by most historians today.

So here we have reputable modern scholars, both publishing in reputable presses (one academic and the other ecclesiastical) stating that "few scholars today" would accept the kind of position you are attributing to "many historians", and that essential elements of that position "would be questioned by most historians today." Harmakheru (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Again most of Harmakheru's poinst seem to me to be irrelevant to the main discussion. Whether the writer imagines the bishop of Rome to be have been monarchical or otherwise is not of relevance to the Catholic Church's continuance from the Church founded in Rome and under Peter and Paul.

• "Eventually, Rome followed the example of other christian communities and structured itself after the model of the empire with one presbyter bishop in charge ..." Yes. And...?
• "Whether Paul actually ordained or established presbyter-bishops in the churches he founded remains uncertain." What has this to do with the point at hand?
• ""The study of the New Testament offers no proof that Jesus established the papacy nor even that he established Peter as the first bishop of Rome." Again we're not discussing the establishment of "the papacy" and you wouldn't find Jesus making Peter Bishop of Rome in the New Testament. That is not the point. The point is that the Catholic Church is the historical continuation of the Church established in Rome. Xandar 22:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The statements you deride as "irrelevant" were made in response to claims that you have made in the course of the discussion:

"Linus, Anacletus, and Clement were popes."

"The New testament shows us Bishops being appointed for all the new communities"

"the idea that Rome was the only city without a Bishop, or that Peter and Paul - who appointed bishops elsewhere - failed to take on the role or appoint office-holders in Rome is sheer and unsupported speculation."

These are claims that you have made. And once you made them, they became fair game for others to respond to. Harmakheru (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but the issues are arguable and they are still tangential to the main issue - whether a considerable numbe rof historians support the historical continuity of the Catholic Church of today from the Apostolic church. Xandar 23:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Failed verification for "Some scholars agree that Jesus founded the church"

PMAnderson added {{failed-verification}} tags for this sentence:

Many scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus (ref #1) while others argue that it was created by Peter or Paul.(ref #2)

Ref#1: Norman, p. 11, p. 14, quote: "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime."

Ref#2: Derrett, p. 480, quote: "... the activities of Jesus, and of Paul of Tarsus, cannot be understood without a knowledge of the peculiar world in which they operated. Some believe that Christianity was not founded by Jesus, called Christ, but rather by Peter with such of his associates who were apostles after Jesus's anastasis, which is usually called 'resurrection'. The faith of Peter, and the subsequent faith of Paul, are the rocks upon which the early churches were founded. Their psychosociological position at any rate must be known if one is to understand their proceedings. Others, this writer included, take Jesus as the inspiring force of the church."

Now, it seems to me that these quotes support the idea that some assert that the Church was founded by Jesus and others (not Derrett) argue that "Christianity was not founded by Jesus, called Christ, but rather by Peter with such of his associates who were apostles after Jesus's anastasis". The only thing I see wrong with this sentence is with the phrase "many scholars" because the assertion "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime." made by Norman might be considered to be a theological assertion rather than a historical one. Derrett's circumlocution is interesting. He puts himself in opposition to those "some" who "believe that Christianity was not founded by Jesus" but he doesn't go as far as Norman. Instead, he says that he is among those who "take Jesus as the inspiring force of the church." Heck, all Christians "take Jesus as the inspiring force of the church". The question at hand is whether Jesus actually intended to found a church and Derrett doesn't actually say anything about that in the quote that was provided.

PMAnderson, can you explain what your concerns are about this sentence and make suggestions on how to address those concerns?

--Richard (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The first tag is based on Harmakheru's quotes from Norman in #getting at the point above. Norman is not quoting historians, but is discussing a doctrine held by Roman Catholics as a matter of faith. (Nor is he making the assertion himself.)
• The second asserts that Peter (or Paul) founded Christianity, which is indeed widely held, but does not assert that [the Catholic Church] was created by Peter or Paul. While clearly related questions, they are not the same assertion.
• I would remove the sentence altogether, rather than attempt to patch it. It is not necessary to the section, not supported in its present form, and not substantiated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Further References

Here's what the Oxford History of Christianity has to say on the Church's origins:

Rome. Combating second-century Gnosticism, Irenaeus appealed to the 'public' doctrine taught in the churches of apostolic foundation by the successive bishops, and especially cited the succession-list of Rome, 'the very large, ancient, and universally known church founded by the two glorious apostles Peter and Paul' - for (Irenaeus adds) all believers everywhere in every church are necessarily in agreement with Rome as an apostolic foundation with a cosmopolitan membership and extensive dealings with other churches. ... Towards the latter part of the 1st century, Rome's presiding cleric named Clement wrote on behalf of his church to remonstrate with the Corinthian Christians who had ejected clergy without either financial or charismatic endowment in favour of a fresh lot; Clement apologized not for intervening but for not having acted sooner. Moreover, during the second century the Roman community's leadership was evident in its generous alms to poorer churches. About 165 they erected monuments to their martyred apostles, to Peter in a necropolis on the Vatican Hill, to Paul on the road to Ostia, at the traditional sites of their burial. Roman bishops were already conscious of being custodians of the authentic tradition of true interpretation of the apostolic writings. In the conflict with Gnosticism Rome played a decisive role, and likewise in the deep division in Asia Minor created by the claims of the Montanist prophets..

This is written by H Chadwick, not a "Vatican apologist", and pretty clearly shows the continuance and leading status of the Church of Rome from the Apostolic period. Xandar 23:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, this is what they have to say about the origins of the See of Rome. Whether this is the same subject is the point at issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, what Chadwick writes here is entirely correct as far as I know--but it does not prove the point you are trying to make. Yes, Rome intervened in a dispute at Corinth toward the end of the first century (although how much this intervention was "fraternal" and "pastoral" as opposed to "authoritative" is very much disputed). Yes, in the second century Rome was a bulwark against heresy and contributed greatly to other churches in all sorts of ways. Yes, by the middle of the second century Rome was "already conscious" of its responsibilities as guardian of the authentic apostolic tradition, and it had a real bishop who began to exercise some measure of authority elsewhere, although not without resistance from other bishops, and nothing like the sort of authority he came to have later. (Chadwick himself dates the first Roman exercise of foreign "jurisdiction" to AD 190.)

But none of this demonstrates any actual continuity between the Christian communities of Rome in the time of Peter, and the Church of Rome that did all the things Chadwick describes as taking place in the late first century and thereafter. Yes, for centuries historians motivated by confessional allegiances glossed over that gap and bridged it with traditions and legends, but that does not prove they were right to do so; and today's historians largely dismiss those traditions and legends as worthless, or very nearly so, except for the probability (not certainty) that Peter did go to Rome and was martyred there. As these historians say again and again, beyond these two probable facts, we know almost nothing about what happened at Rome between Peter and Clement. Although Chadwick recounts Irenaeus' statement about Peter and Paul, that doesn't mean he is endorsing it as actual history; Chadwick himself, in his Early Church, explicitly says that "we have no information whatever about [Peter's] activity" at Rome, so his citation of Irenaeus seems intended not to detail what actually happened at Rome in the first century but rather to demonstrate the development of the second-century traditions about Rome. Not the same thing at all. Harmakheru (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also the following from the article on Peter in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church 1997:

Tradition connecting Peter with Rome is early and unrivalled. Against it can be placed only the silence of the NT, but even here Rom 15 20-2 may point to the presence of another Apostle in Rome before Paul wrote, and the identification of 'Babylon' in 1 Pet. 5:13 with Rome seems highly probable. Clement of Rome (1 Clem 5) conjoins Peter and Paul as the outstanding heroes of the faith, and probably implies that Peter suffered martyrdom. St Ignatius quotes words (Rom 4:2) which suggest that Peter and Paul were the Apostles of special authority for the Roman Church, and St Irenaeus (Ad. Haer. 3.1.2., 3.3.1) states definitely that they founded the Church and instituted its episcopal succession. Other early witnesses to the tradition are Gaius of Rome and Dionysius of Corinth. ... There are historical grounds for believing that the tomb in St Peter's, Rome, is authentic. Xandar 23:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

All true, but again it doesn't prove your point. Most modern authorities consider it likely that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there; this is not really in dispute anymore, but his presence and martyrdom at Rome doesn't prove that he founded the Church there or was its first bishop or established an apostolic succession there. Clement is indeed a witness to the belief that Peter and Paul were heroes and martyrs, but he does not say that they founded the Church at Rome. Ignatius does suggest that by his day Peter and Paul were considered especially authoritative by the Roman Church, but Ignatius is writing ca. AD 107--and even he does not say that Peter and Paul founded the Roman Church, or hint at any special apostolic succession derived from them there. It is not until Irenaeus that we finally find such a claim--almost a century after the events--and most modern historians consider the claim to be legendary and/or apologetic rather than historical. Harmakheru (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally there is this from the article on the Church in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (ed. Cross and Livingstone 1997 OUP):

soon after the Ressurection gentiles began to join the Hellenists or Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, probably first in Antioch (cf Acts 11:20). Paul's gentile mission and especially the epistles which he wrote in the 50s laid foundations for the Gentile Christianity which became dominant after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 and the expulsion of Jewish Christians from synagogues in the 80s. This 'parting of the ways' between Church and synagogue marked a large step in the emerging of early Catholic Christianity around 100 AD. ... After the death of St James (the Great), Paul and Peter in the 60s and the marginalizing of Jewish Christianity, new structures were needed and Church order developed. The memory of the Apostles was cherished and the emerging orthodoxy of the 2nd century aimed to be 'apostolic' in all things, repudiating as heretics those who were not. The essence of the Church was later epitomized in the traditional 'notes of the Church', namely unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. The concept is already present in Ephesians, though the term 'the catholic church' first occurs in St Ignatius (Ep. ad Smyrn., 8.2). As teaching the Apostles doctrine and historically descended from them, the Church is apostolic.

Once again this is firm backing for the Apostolic continuity of the Church from reputable historians, contrary to what has been claimed. Xandar 23:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Notice the wording: "the emerging of early Catholic Christianity around 100 AD", and "the emerging orthodoxy of the 2nd century", and the "essence of the Church" being "later epitomized" by catholicity and apostolicity. This "emergence" and "later epitomizing" could itself be taken as evidence of discontinuity between the apostolic age and the beginning of the second century; if Catholic Christianity was actually continuous with the apostolic age, then there would be no need for it to "emerge" from it--it would already be it. What you cite here just as easily supports the view I have offered, that the apostolic deposit was "appropriated" by the Roman Church (and perhaps others) toward the end of the first century, rather than standing in historical continuity with it. Harmakheru (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Vote regarding scholarly POV's on Church origins

Our article text, the one that has gone through several FACs and peer reviews, states in the lead and in Origins and Mission section that there are different opinions among scholars regarding the Church origins. WP:NPOV requires us to present these views giving each side equal weight. We have done this but some editors here are saying that there are no historians that agree with the Catholic POV on the origin of the Church even though we have included three sources in the article to support this POV. I have also provided some more sources on the talk page above. See [13] and [14]. Because Karanacs and Richard are eliminating our consensus text in favor of hiding these important facts, I would like to have a vote here to see what true consensus decides. Please vote Support if you favor our consensus version of text or Oppose if you would like to eliminate these facts altogether.

• Consensus text is here: (third lead paragraph and second para in Origins and Mission)[15]
• This is what happens when we lose the consensus text [16]

Support NancyHeise ^talk 01:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)