Talk:Papal primacy

"The primacy of the Roman Pontiff is the bishop of Rome's monarchical authority ..."

That's what it said. I changed it. As I read it, I thought it's saying the primacy ... is the bishop of something. The bishop of what? Well, whatever it is stated to be the bishop of, it is incorrect; the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is certainly not the bishop of anything.

Q: The bishop of what?

A: Of Rome's monarchical authority.

That's what it said. Now it took all of two second's before I realized an alternative parsing was intended. That is why I changed it. Michael Hardy 22:33, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article seems to be a defence for the popes primacy, and does not reflect current knowledge of the early church (who was governed by presbyters) or our current knowledge of the so called primacy of Peter. Peters primacy is violently denied by Paul, who claim there are no apostels who have any authority over him. Furthermore when we read both acts and Pauls letters we can read that the first leader of the church was James the just, the brother of the lord. He calls both Paul and Peter to meetings, and he always get the last word in all discussion. When we read acts we will discover that Peter is only mentioned early and dissapear from the scene, it is Paul who seem more likely to have primacy in the church after James. If we read the church fathers we would discover that the popes did not have any primacy outside Italy in the fist centuries of the church, not until Leo this claim was made. Jesus says in the bible when asked who should be their leader, and he replies that there should be none. The first shall be the last. Peter is in the bible given the job of converting jews, and it is Paul who converts gentiles. Paul writes that the church was already in Rome when he got there the first time. So neither Paul nor Peter founded the church in Rome. In Pauls letter to the romans he greets many people in Rome, but he does not mention Peter at all. There are no evidence at all for Peter ever even being to Rome. According to early chuch tradition he was bishop in Antioch. Furthermore the famous renaming of Peter is an insertion into the bible. All mentioning of a church from Jesus must be doubted. There was no church before the crucificton.How could Peter understand what Jesus was meaning. This is an catholic insertion to bolster it claims for primacy. It is really dissapointing to read articles like this, i thougt this site would be objectiv and follow simple scientific guidelines like being true to your sources and not rehash the priests lies. Your salvation comes from within and no church or priest can give it to you. OH

Early belief in the Church is that Jesus granted Peter jurisdiction over the Church

Where is the proof for this claim. Both Jesus and Paul calls Peter Satan. Paul tells us that no other apostel is more important than he is. Paul even rebukes Peter in public. The Bible tells us that when the disicples asked for who their leader should be, Jesus answered that they should all be the same. Furthermore the leader of the church after Jesus death was James the Just, the brother of the lord. The clementines are catholic forgeries probably from the second century and gives no truth about the conditions in the first century. This uncritical use of catholic forgeries is not at all reassuring. How can we trust this site if it only tells catholic pious lies, a term invented by the catholic church.OH

First of all, where does it say that James was the leader of the church? Now, I don't care about the Apocrypha and all that stuff. According to the KJV New Testament, it is Peter that is the one who is the Pastor. Multiple, multiple times it was Peter who was the moderator of the services. He was the mouthpiece of the church.

The only problem with all this is, there is no "leader" of the Church, except Jesus Christ. He does not need an "earthly leader," he's the Son of God! And, for the record, according to the New Testament, all members are equal. In fact, it says that the Bishops (Pastors, Ministers) would be the least of them. So, if James was the so-called "most important," then he would be the last to lead.

And, by the way, when Jesus "called" Peter Satan, he wasn't claiming that Peter was really Satan in disguise, he was telling Satan to leave Him alone, and not to speak through Peter anymore. Joshua Ingram (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of them opt to give the primacy of honor to Constantinople's Patriarch instead.

Why does you mention Saint John Chrysostom as a defender of papal authority. You might as well mention Paul as an advocate against the papacy. The early church leaders did not accept any primacy from Rome. When the roman bishops started making such claim they were rejected by close to all priests and bishops. The clementines is not written by Clement, the alleged fourth pope (according to some catholic sources he is the second pope). Letter of Clement to the Corinthians is an anomyous letter and does not claim to be written by Clement, this is a claim with no historical foundation only a late claim made by the catholic church. The popes primacy was established during the middle ages by pious lying. The Vatican had forgers who worked around the clock to forge anything from the will of Constatine to the Bible itself. The only comfort is that their hatred of learning meant that they did not do a very good job. OH

Weird statement

This statement: The Saviour never introduced Peter to the other disciples by saying: 'See, I have appointed Peter as My successor; receive him as your Pope and head of the Church, call him Holy Father, honour and obey him.' On the contrary, Jesus made the following positive declaration, which is diametrically opposed to Roman teaching: 'But be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shalt exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.' Matthew 23:8-12.

Sounds odd, unencyclopedic, and POV. It also seems like it could fall under original research too. It should probably be changed. - DNewhall 13:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the statement above because it was added by the person who wrote those rants earlier in the page (OH/62.113.158.66). The statement seems was just adding some of those rants to the article. - DNewhall 13:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Weird statement

My statements might seem strange and unfamilar to a catholic. But this article is totally biased. There is no mentioning of the common protestant arguements against the primacy of the Roman pontiff. I just copied and pasted a short insertion with maybe a little biased viewpoint against the Catholic church, but i really think this article at least should mention Matthew 23: 8-12 'But be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shalt exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.' Matthew 23:8-12. and the fact that Peter is not mentioned in any of Pauls letters to the romans. Paul greets relatively many christians in Rome. In the following comments i will copy and paste from other Wikipedia articles. The Didache is mentioned in the article as proof of a hierarchical church in first centuries. But if we look in your article about the Didache we will find this statement: The Didache is unique amongst early Christian texts by its emphasis on itinerant ministers, which it describes as apostles and prophets; while it provides for a local ministry of bishops and deacons, these are described in far more detail in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome. Why doesnt the text reflect that this is not information commonly found in first century christianity. Here is your comments about the local ministery: The local ministers are bishops and deacons, as in Paul's epistle Philippians (1:1) and Clement. Presbyters are not mentioned, and the bishops are clearly presbyter-bishops, as in Acts, 20, and in the Pauline Epistles. But when Ignatius wrote in 107, or at the latest 117, the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons were already considered necessary to the very name of a Church, in Syria, Asia Minor, and Rome. It is probable that in Clement's time there was as yet no monarchical episcopate at Corinth, though such a state did not endure much past Clement's time in any of the major Christian centers. On this ground, the Didache is most likely set either in the first century or a rural church. The itinerant ministry is obviously yet more archaic. In the second century prophecy was a charisma only and not a ministry, except among the Montanists. Why doesnt this article reflect the nature of the bishops in the first century. My next point is the alleged letter of Clement to the Corinthians. In your article about Clement, the fourth pope, i found this under writings: Clement is perhaps best known by a letter to the Church in Corinth, often called 1 Clement. It is not clear that it was written by Pope Clement I, as is traditionally believed. This letter doesnt even claim to be written by Clement as is it anonymous. The following comments are taken from: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html

Information on First Clement On the internal evidence for the dating of 1 Clement, Welborn writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, p. 1060):

The epistle is customarily dated to the end of the reign of Domitian (95 or 96 C.E.). In the first sentence of the letter, the author explains that the Roman church has been delayed in turning its attention to the dispute at Corinth by "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us" (1:1). This statement is usually interpreted as an allusion to a persecution through which the church at Rome has just been passing. Since chap. 5 speaks of the Neronian persecution as something long past, the sporadic assaults of Domitian must be meant. But the langauge of 1:1 is so vague that one may doubt whether it refers to persecution at all (Merrill 1924: 160); and the evidence for a persecution under Domitian is tenuous (Merrill 1924: 148-73). In letters and speeches on concord, one often finds an apologetic formula like that which introduces 1 Clement; it was customary for one who gave advice on concord to excuse his delay by reference to personal or domestic hindrances (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 40.2; Aelius Aristides Or. 24.1; Socratic Ep. 31).

Laurence Welborn writes about the dating of 1 Clement (op. cit., p. 1060):

Thus one must rely upon more general statements in the epistle and in tradition. The account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eye-witness. The presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has passed (44:3). The church at Rome is called "ancient" (47:6); and the emissaries from Rome are said to have lived "blamelessly" as Christians "from youth to old age" (63:3). Thus the epistle cannot have been written before the last decades of the 1st century. There are references to the letter by the middle of the next century in the works of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.16; 4.22; 4.23). Thus one may place the composition of 1 Clement between A.D. 80 and 140.

Loisy maintains that the author of 1 Clement was a distinguished Roman elder who flourished 130-140 and that this Clement was named in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision, 8:3), which is also to be dated to the mid second century. Notably, a writing is mentioned in 1 Clement 23:3 in which the challenge is quoted, "These things we did hear in the days of our fathers also, and behold we have grown old, and none of these things hath befallen us." Because this source document for 1 Clement must have been written when the hope of the imminent parousia was waning, and because 1 Clement itself must have dealt with the same issue, the document can scarcely be dated to the time of the first Christian generation. Other indications of lateness include the tradition in chapter 5 that Paul traveled to the extremities of the west (i.e., Spain) and the emphasis on the appointment of "bishops and deacons" (42:1-5). Most notably, there is stated to be "a rule of succession" for bishops and deacons who have "fallen asleep" (44:2). This suggests a second century date for 1 Clement.

Alvar Ellegård has argued for a date as early as the sixties of the first century for a few reasons in his Jesus: the Temple cult is mentioned in the present tense (pp. 38-39), Peter and Paul are mentioned as of "our generation" (pp. 39-40), and the letter seemed to have been written during a persecution, perhaps that of Nero (p. 40). On the other hand, as is pointed out with Hebrews, a mention of the Temple cult in the present does not prove that the author was writing before 70 CE. The reference to "our generation" is simply a contrast between the Christian era and the previously mentioned era of ancient Judaism. Finally, the supposed reference to persecution may be a literary device, as pointed out by Welborn. Besides, there were also persecutions under Domitian, Trajan, and other emperors.

The author writes because certain factions in Corinth have not given proper respect to the bishops and deacons and have set up new leaders in their place. On the occasion of the epistle, Welborn states (op. cit., p. 1059):

Whatever the causes of the conflict in Corinth, money seems to have been involved. Contrasting the former humility of the Corinthians with the ambition which has now given rise to strife, the author states that the Corinthians had once been 'satisfied with the provision (ephodios) of Christ' (2:1). Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to Soter, observed that it had been the custom of the Roman church from the beginning 'to send contributions (ephodia) to many churchs in every city' (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.23.10). From the Roman point of view of Clement, the younger generation of leaders at Corinth are dissatisfied with the provision for their church. What role did this play in the revolt against the presbyters? Were the established presbyters accused of embezzlement? Did the new leaders seek another contribution, to replace the funds their predecessors stole? Polycarp reports that the presbyter Valens was deposed from office for "avarice" (Ad Phil. 11). The unrest of the 1st and 2d centuries almost always had economic causes; and the agreements which brought strife to an end usually included concrete provisions which served the interests of all parties.

This is only some of the points where this article dont give a fair description of its sources. At the very least normal arguements against the primacy should be incorporated to the texr. I accept that mine insertion probably wasnt the best way, but it seems i got somebodys attention. Matthew 23: 8-12 should at least be mentioned. OH

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe Peter, Paul, James, and all those, maybe they ran the Church that Jesus started, and then someone broke off from the original, real Church and started calling themselves the real, true church? That maybe the Catholics are a breakaway of the true Church? Has anyone read the characteristics of the true Church from the New Testament? If you look closely, they don't come anywhere near matching any kind of church but one: Old Time Missionary Baptists. Joshua Ingram (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

POV reference to Chrysostom?

The phrasing of the following statement in the introduction seems trying to slide in POV under the guise of objectivity.

The present Eastern Orthodox churches, contrary to the teaching of, amongst others, Saint John Chrysostom, consider that the Bishop of Rome has a mere primacy of honor that, since the East-West Schism, is no longer in force.

The "contrary to the teaching of ..." clause is inappropriate here. The way this is phrased comes off sounding like "This is what these guys thought even thought nobody credible agreed with them." It serves no useful purpose in an introduction. Such discussions would be appropriate in a section discussing controversies. --Mcorazao 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is one big POV essay of "hard-line" Catholic apologetics that isn't even supported by modern Catholic scholarship, as exemplified, ironically enough, by the Schatz book in the references. Any changes you make to ameliorate this POV will greatly improve the article. -- Cat Whisperer 00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Data From A Church Historian

Writing about Pope Leo I, church historian Ernest Trice Thompson states the following:

None of the early church fathers interpreted Jesus' words to Peter to mean that to Peter and to his successors, the bishops of Rome, full authority in the church had been granted; this, however, was the claim of Leo. It was a claim that bishops in the older parts of the [Roman] empire would never accept.

Quote Source: Thompson, Ernest T. (1965). Through The Ages: A History Of The Christian Church. The CLC Press.

Dodo David 22:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Dodo David

Does Mr. Thompson site anything to prove this? Any scholar can push his/her opinion by stating anything they want, after all. Evidence is needed to back up his statement, his statement is worthless.Glorthac (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Disscussion

I have noticed that the comments on this page are rather negative and not very befitting a Neutral encyclopaedia. Too many people it seems live in communities or phantasy worlds where the only common link between individuals is Anti-Catholicism. Why this kind of hate speech is tolerated is beyond me but I do notice that is a Catholic were to place anything otherwise objectionable to there fanatics then it is immediatly removed. Does anyone else here the words bias and religous discrimination floting in the air?

If some kind person would like to improve this article with factual information then here is a free tidbit. Technically speaking, the authority of the Pope as the Bishop of Rome rest with him not because he is the bishop of Rome but because of his person. What this means is that should the Bishop of Rome decide to for whatever reason to leave Rome and appoint another Bishop in his place, that new bishop would not have the authority of the Pope and would not be a successor to Peter. The fact that the Pope resides in Rome is incidental. Following this line of thought, suppose the Pope were to not take up another see but were to be a wanderer. In such a case, no city would have a claim to the temporal head of the Church but of course Catholics can very well choose a new Pope. Suppose, as was originally the case with Rome itself, that the Pope leave Rome and go to a city that did not have a Bishop and established himself there. Then the Bishop of Rome would no longer have the authority. Then if the Pope were to die in the new city, then the next bishop of the new city would have the authority of the Pope. Now you may be thinking that you understand and that there is no need to go on but let me put one more situation on the table so that everyone, even my Greek friends, will see clearly the thinking that surrounds this doctrine of the Catholic Church. Suppose that the pope were to move to a city that already had a bishop but the Pope decided to take the see for himself. This of course would be very rude but is possible for the Pope to do so. This exact thing in fact happened when the Pope moved back to Rome from France. Suppose the Pope were to move to Constantinople. Certainly the the Greek leaders there would not recognize his authority but Catholics the world over would. Then suppose the Pope were to die, Catholics would have to elect a new Pope. One option, which is always avaliable in fact, is to elect the Greek leader to the post as he is already established in the city. If such an event were to occur then the Greek Patriarch would become the Pope and would remain Pope either until he died or told the Catholics that he specifically did not want the job or the title. Suppose the Pope and the Greek Patriarch were to die on the same day, then the interesting question would be if the synod that elects the new Patriach is also electing the new Pope or if Catholics would have to hold a seperate election for a new Pope.

Oh how the mind can wonder. Of course almost none of this is likely to happen any time soon. My point with all of this is to illistrate as effectivly as I can in a language that is not my native language that this page really should be combined with the page on the Primacy of Peter and his Successors. The Primacy of Rome is incidental and can change at the will of the Pope. If one of the Patriachs of one of the Eastern Catholic Rites is elected as Pope then he could very well keep his see that he is already in and not move to Rome or celebrate the Latin Rite. In such a case, the head of the Latin Rite would be a different person then the Pope. If any of these suggestions were to happen, it would probably mean the splitting of titles of the pope. The Pope is bishop of Rome as long as he is the Bishop of Rome but if he moves then that changes. He is the Patriach of the west or the Latin Rite but if he changes then he would have to give that title to someone else.

Of all the titles that the Pope has, only the one that says he is the successor to Peter grants him the authority he excersises. All of the other titles really could be considered transferable to another person besided the Pope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Duplicates content from History of the Papacy

A substantial amount of the content in this article is exactly the same as History of the Papacy. Perhaps they should be merged in some way? Kwertii (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Primus inter parTes?

Surely it should be "Primus inter pares", i.e. "First among equals". NickS (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The articles are about the same thing, and the Petrine doctrine page is orphaned. Foofighter20x (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry but I disagree. The Petrine doctrine is a small part of this article. If you merge that article in here, it serves to make this article bigger and it's getting pretty big as it is. This article should reference Petrine doctrine. --Richard (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed my mind. How about having an article titled Historical development of the doctrine of Papal Primacy? The new article would factor out the historical portion of this article thus leaving the scope of this article to deal more with the current status of the doctrine. Petrine doctrine could be merged into the new article since it is mostly historical in content. --Richard (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Primacy of the Roman Pontiff and Papal supremacy are same thing. Srinivasasha (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Lima (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support :Primacy of the Roman Pontiff and Papal supremacy are same thing. Perhaps the merged title should contain a bracketed phrase like "Papal supremacy (claimed)". Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support :Ooh, can I support this too? =) Glorthac (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Primacy of the Roman Pontiff and Papal supremacy are not the same thing. The Primacy of the Roman Pontiff is as dogmatic, theological and juridical concept of the munus petrinum based on the ecclesiogical title of Successor of the Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Christ. Papal supremacy is only a political concept. Mikejos.ssp (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikejos.ssp (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Disagree with Mikejos above. While he's correct in saying that the phrase "Papal supremacy" is mainly political, nevertheless, it derives its force and claimed legitimacy from the "Primacy of the Roman Pontiff" doctrine. Without this doctrine, "Papal supremacy" could have no force. It is no more than saying that the pope claims supremacy in both spiritual and temporal matters. In which case, the two should be merged into the same article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Disagree with Laurel above. The "Papal supremacy" was founded in the Donation of Constantine (Donatio Constantini or Constitutum Constantini) who is a false document for the recuperation of the patrimonium Petri. Never the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff was founded in this document. The dogmatic foundation was in the Petrine doctrine of the Primacy of saint Peter expressed in the New Testament (see Math 16:18; Lk 22,32; John 21,15-17). It is based on the munus petrinum and expressed by the dogmatic constitution of Pastor aeternus in the First Vatican Council. The Constitutum Constantini has a relative value in political thinking of the Papacy. We must distinguish between Papacy (Papatus) and Primacy (Primatus).Mikejos.ssp (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikejos.ssp (talk • contribs) 14:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

POV (unrelated to the 5 October 2011 POV tag

There is a huge POV issue in one section which talks about the primacy in the 6th century. It uses D'Aubigne with an incomplete citation. Upon further review I discovered that this book was a polemical Protestant one often used by Seventh Day Adventists. I therefore edited the section to eliminate the POV and to be more objective.97.114.178.44 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am talking with a colleague about the title "Rector" for the Pope. There is no citation given. I have found this mentioned on Seventh Day Adventist websites, but nowhere else. We will look around and see if we can find any reference.97.114.178.44 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Latin overload

The lead has become vitually unreadable. nobody but Curial officials and Latin anoraks could understand most of those arcane Latin terms. Simple English needs to be applied to the lead. Let the arcane Latin terms appear in the main body (if they really really must).Let the lead be more accessible for mere mortals. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition??

This article has no lead and gives no definition of its subject matter. It dives right into describing the arguments for and against "the primacy of the Roman pontiff," without explaining what that is. I can make a rough guess based on the meaning of the word "primacy" in ordinary English, but I'm aware that it is being used here as a theological term of art, possibly not in its conversational sense, and that is hardly a common word anyway. 128.100.3.42 (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but it will be a lot of work. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Why beat around the bush? The pragmatic reality even in the West is that this has hardly ever existed in secular terms. From Clement V to the election of Martin V, the Papacy was in thrall to the French King, from Martin V to Benedict XI it attempted to claim power, but was continuously at war with the Second Estate, and therafter first France (in the period of the Holy League) and then England (from Henry VIII's Great Matter onwards) refused to recognise it - one can see in the religious vector of the Thirty Years War and the War of the Spanish Succession that this was a continuing point of contention amongst many others. The entire shooting match came unravelled permanently in the French Revolution, the Directory and the rise of Napoleon, and from 1848 onwards it lost all possible pragmatic claim. Working back from 1305, most of the 13th Century saw Frederic II Hohenstauffen unaligned, leaving at most the 12th century, the period of the Crusades, when the doctrine might be considered authoritative: the eleventh century and earlier were more accurately the end of the Dark Ages.

Additionally, the motivation of the claim is different at different times. That of the fifteenth century was intended to put an end to the feudal wars which had nearly finished Western Civilisation in the wake of the Black Death: in the sixteenth century, it was politically-driven. The fourteenth century, ethically inspired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverted eight edits by Mikejos.ssp

I reverted eight edits by Mikejos.ssp because the writing was subpar (grammatical and spelling errors), the prose was too technical and the tone of the text seemed argumentative. It seems there is valuable content in these edits. It just needs to be rewritten but I don't feel that I am up to the task. I am putting his text here for others to consider. Perhaps someone can help figure out what is valuable and should be inserted into the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Why the Roman Pontiff is Successor he received the haereditas Petri and with the haereditas he recived the supreme authority in faith and moral. <ref>«Et ideo ad solam auctoritatem summi pontificis pertinet nova editio symboli, sicut et omnia alia quae pertinent ad totam Ecclesiam». Thomas of Aquin, Summa theologiae, II-II, q. 1, a. 10.</ref> This is the reason of the ecclesiological titel of the See Rome as Mater and Magistra of all Churches. <ref>«Sancta Romana aecclesia, communis mater, omnium gentium magistra et domina». Gregory VII, The Epistolae vagantes, n. 55, ed. H. E. J. Cowdrey, Oxford, 1972, 134. See Ignatius of Antiochia, Ad Romanos, III, 1 (Sources Chrétiennes 10, 110-111). See M. Maccarrone, La teologia del Primato romano del secolo XI, in Le Istituzioni ecclesiastiche della «Societas Christiana» dei secoli XI-XII. Papato, Cardinalato, ed Episcopato. Atti della quinta Settimana internazionale di studio, Mendola 26-31 agosto 1971, Milano, Miscellanea del Centro di Studi Medievali VII, 1974, 25-26. See M. G. D'Agostino, Il Primato della Sede di Roma in Leone IX (1049-1054). Studio dei testi latini nella controversia greco-romana nel periodo pregregoriano, Cinisello Balsamo, Edizioni San Paolo, 2008, 311-328.</ref> The See of Rome has different roles in authority. In this sense [[Pope Innocent I]] (401-417) in a letter to bispop Victorico Rotomagensi (15 february 404) distinguished in the primay a specifical [[munus apostolicum]] and [[munus episcopale]]. <ref>Incipiamus igitur adjuvante [deo et] sancto apostolo Petro, per quem et apostolatus et episcopatus in Christo coepit exordium (PL 20, 470A; cfr. anche ed. Hinschius 529, JK 286.</ref>

From an Orthodox point of view

I would think that the article should have an 'arguments against' section. I am Orthodox, and have many considered arguments against Papal Primacy (as Catholics understand it). I think it would help if people reading the article can see that there are well-thought out arguments against the idea. Montalban (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Would be happy to review. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Montalban's additions to this article are too extensive for an encyclopedia article. I do think it is important to have an "arguments against" section but they now dominate the article. At some point, this section will have to be trimmed so that it does not take up a disproportionate amount of the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The EO section is out of all proportion to the main thrust of the article. It can be said more succinctly. Where to wield the knife though? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing more succinctly is always good. Certainly examples can be removed, so for e.g. if there's 6 examples of different ECFs saying something this could be reduced. However I find the whole reason for reducing it is spurious - that it's too long. It can be valid that one has a longer argument that an opposition. This can happen, for example in court where one sides case goes for 1 day and the other for several.

Further to that, one can argue that the Catholic argument is too short. It's based on very brief references to sayings of church fathers without actually showing what they said - which is the very point made in the conclusion of the Orthodox case

It would also mean that no other church can post their own view, because that would make the Catholic argument even smaller by comparison. Or, alternatively every time a new church adds their piece we'd have to reduce the Orthodox argument to keep a balance that exists on measuring lines printed.

Montalban (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Montalban, in all Charity, if you do not wield the knife yourself, one less sympathetic to the EO position will do so for you. This is not a win/lose game; it's about setting forth nice positions as succinctly and fairly as possible with due regard to each side of the house. Consider what serves to make the point, discard what is repetitive; in all, let the interests and attention span of the average reader be foremost in your thoughts, not the rarefied musings of academia. An excess of trivia may only serve to cloud your main point: "A little more than a little is by much too much". Peace. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. The same and usual suspects have done nothing but find negative comments to make. I do not mean you. I don't see anything I've written as trivial. I already acknowledge that there's room for less examples to make a point. I find the reasoning first put forward was spurious - that merely of length -for reasons I've given above. You have more valid reasons. However one must also consider that the people making complaints about the three 'Catholic' articles I write on (Papal Supremacy; Ecumenical council; Papal infallibility) have nothing but criticisms, demands that I answer questions already answered, citing every point to the Nth degree), etc.

I am not at present of the mind to touch the article at all. I have appreciated your re-writes in the past as you word things better than I. I would implore you not to take for granted every other criticism that arises. Montalban (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed compromise.

I suggest that the entire EO section be deleted and replaced with what I have written below. I have omitted all references but if this formula was acceptable, then all the citations and the numerous subsections could be embedded as references and/or notes. This would allow a logical flow for the EO arguments while not distracting the reader or forcing him to have an intimate knowledge of abstruse teachings at the first pass. I commend it to the House.

Eastern Orthodox arguments against the primacy may be categorised as follows:

• Arguments from Scripture

• At the Council of Jerusalem it was James the Just who stated the decision of the Council, not Peter.
• The granting of the Keys of the Kingdom is not to Peter alone; it is the whole Church, that binds and looses sins.
• The church at Rome church was founded (or organised) by both Peter and Paul. As no particular charism or primacy attaches to Paul, then it is not from his co-foundation of the church of Rome that the Roman Pontiff claims primacy.
• Christ is the spiritual rock. As all are called to be "rock", and as many Sees are of Peter, Peter serves as an archetype of Apostle

• Argument from Ecumenical Councils

• Not one Ecumenical Council was called by a pope; all were called by Byzantine emperors. Had the teaching of primacy formed part of Holy Tradition, then such power would have been exercised to resolve the many disputes in the early history of the church.
• A general council may overrule decisions of the Roman Pontiff
• Decisions taken by popes in cases involving against bishops have often been confirmed by ecumenical councils. This indicates the decision itself is not considered binding.

• Arguments from western councils

• Western councils also disregarded papal authority. The Third Council of Toledo added the filioque despite the fact that popes opposed its addition.
• Councils of the western churches that are not ecumenical councils may be ignored by the east. The Byzantine Church never submitted itself to papal scrutiny in the manner suggested by the Council of Sardica. This synod shows that the pope failed to exercise power over the entire church.

• Arguments from early church history

• Rome had primacy, but it was one of honour, rather than power.
• Rome is an Apostolic throne, not the Apostolic throne.
• Each bishops has the right to decide affairs within his local church. In the event of a dispute with another bishop, only a general council may rule on the matter.
• Church Fathers do not refer to another tier above bishop.
• Cases which had been decided by Rome were appealed to bishops in other Metropolitan bishops
• Cases which had been decided by Rome were appealed to synods of bishops in other metropolitan areas
• Peter founded many Episcopal sees. There is no difference between the Sees of Peter; all are equal.
• The Apostles were equal; nothing was withheld from any of the Apostles.
• The Roman Pontiff is also styled "universal bishop" (Latin: Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Universalis), but a previous pope condemned the use of such a title by any bishop.
• Rome (Old Rome) and Constantinople (New Rome) were on the same level.
• Eastern patriarchs have regarded popes as the leader of the westerners (not of the whole church).
• Faced with exile John Chrysostom, the Archbishop of Constantinople wrote an appeal for help to three western churchmen. While one of these was the bishop of Rome, had Rome exercised primacy at that time, he would not have written to the other two bishops.

• Arguments from orthodox doctrine

• The test of catholicity is adherence the authority of Scripture, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. It is not defined by adherence to any particular See.
• The approval of the Tome of Leo is simply to state a unity of faith, not only of the Pope but other churchmen as well. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The opening evidence about the very nature of the incarnation of God seems to be absent - it's in the quote from Sherrard - this is in fact the most important part for Orthodox - that the church reflects the incarnation and that to change the nature of the church is to change the image of the incarnation.

However I still see no compelling reason for deleting stuff from that section. It may be lengthy, but that argument doesn't give the reader any credit.

The argument rests on a belief that someone reading it won't have the time and/or understanding to read it all

Furthermore if one is going to embed these, then one should do so for the previous 'pro' sections as well, or is the reader only unable once they get down to section 3?

The VERY WEAKNESS of the Catholic argument is, as I noted, reliant on poor references. A statement is given and then a footnote to a text that doesn't support the claim. By showing what is actually said it actually saves the reader going to have to research these points.

I noted this in the very text - misquotes from a Pope, and so on.

For e.g. the statement is made

Cyprian of Carthage (d.258) stressed the Petrine primacy as well as the unity of the Church and the importance of being in communion with the bishops.[9]

this doesn't refer to what Cyprian said at all, but to another person's interpretation of what Cyprian said. :::::NOTHING more is shown about what Cyprian says till you get to the Orthodox section

Whole swathes of cite-less statements are made such as

The first bishop to claim primacy in writing was Pope Stephen I (254-257). The timing of the claim is significant, for it was made during the worst of the tumults of the third century. There were several persecutions during this century, and they hit the Church of Rome hard.

and

Pope Damasus I (366-384) was first to claim that Rome's primacy rested solely on Peter, and was the first pope to refer to the Roman church as the "Apostolic See". The prestige of the city itself was no longer sufficient; but in the doctrine of apostolic succession the popes had an unassailable position.

People should be looking at this section and asking for MORE information

(I'm discounting the earlier arguments that it's too long in comparison to the Catholic one)

What could be taken away, is from the 'pro' section is an Opposition to the doctrine sub-section. There's no need for this

Montalban (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I assume that Laurel Lodged's proposal uses bullet points solely for the purpose of discussion and that the actual article text would consist of prose in paragraph form rather than bullet point form. Secondly, although I have not reviewed each individual point in Laurel's outline, I like the general approach of the outline and would support using it.

I agree with Montalban that there should not be two sections: "Opposition to the doctrine" and "Orthodox Christian arguments against papal supremacy". However, I disagree with Montalban as to the solution. IMO, we should make "Opposition to the doctrine" a major section and we should fold the contents of "Orthodox Christian arguments against papal supremacy" into that section. Note that I do not suggest that we make "Orthodox Christian arguments against papal supremacy" a subsection of the new major section "Opposition to the doctrine". That is because I don't think we should have a section or subsection titled "Orthodox Christian arguments against papal supremacy". My rationale for this is that I would be surprised if any of the arguments in that section are unique to the Orthodox. Even if there are arguments that are unique to the Orthodox, I am confident that many if not most of the arguments would be common to both the Orthodox and the Anglican views. Imagine therefore if someone decided to add a section "Anglican Christian arguments against papal supremacy". Wouldn't that section have to repeat many of the same arguments that are currently in "Orthodox Christian arguments against papal supremacy"? And so on for any other sections on specific Protestant denominations? It would be far better, IMO, to organize the new major section "Opposition to the doctrine" according to the type of argument, indicating where necessary which churches use that argument and which do not.

I understand that it is the desire of some Orthodox editors to make sure that the Orthodox view is presented. However, Wikipedia has no obligation to present the Orthodox view separately when it is a view that is shared for the most part by many other branches and denominations of Christianity.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Those seeking readability/clarity should fix the Catholic section first

Montalban (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you oppose Laurel's proposal? Do we need to open an RFC to invite other editors to comment? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've said what I've said. I don't see you being critical of anything but Orthodox comments especially where you re-edit Montalban (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Mostly because the text that has been added recently has been written by you. Thus, the nature of watchlists being what they are, my attention is drawn to articles that are being actively edited and, in particular, my attention is being drawn to the sections that are being actively edited. Clearly, it would be preferable to re-read the entire article and improve all of it. However, this being a volunteer effort, there's only so much time and energy one can put into this. Recently, my energies have been directed primarily to improving the article on the First Council of Ephesus while keeping an eye on the rest of the watchlist (some 2000+ pages). On any given day, maybe 50 pages show edits. I scan the edit summaries to see if there is anything worth getting involved in. Your disputes with Esoglou drew my attention.

I like Laurel's proposed outline simply because it attempts to provide a conceptual framework for the discussion rather than the haphazard treatment which the article provides now. I don't have a problem with presenting the EO view on this and other topics. I have a problem with presenting the view badly which is what we are doing now.

IMO, Laurel's proposal looks to be a significant improvement over what we have now. Do you object to it? Do you wish to bring in other editors to discuss why we should or should not go with Laurel's proposal? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections to Laurel's proposal, I would suggest that we start moving towards implementing it. Montalban, do you object? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you read what I wrote - I gave a counter-proposal, I am waiting to hear from her on it as she is approaching this with an open mind Montalban (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is the counter-proposal? And who is the "she" that you are referring to? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you look at my comments of 23:37, 3 October 2011 it will answer both questions - but as I only know of one person here going by a female name I thought 'she' was obvious

I note you have not addressed the same rule-problems to the catholic section.

Montalban (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is just my own ignorance, but I hadn't assume that Laurel was a "she". On reflection, I guess Laurel probably is a female name. My bad.

Wikipedia's timestamping system being what it is, I can't find a comment of yours dated 23:37, 3 October 2011. I think that is because my preferences are set to show UTC times and yours are set to show timestamps in your local time. The only thing I could find was a comment which is time stamped 4:37 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7). Is this comment what you are referring to as a "counter-proposal"? If so, I think you are missing the intent of Laurel's proposal.

What's that got to do with Sherrard? For you I'm happy to (and this will take a while) re-write the article to give the quotes where they're given in Whelton and Abbe Guettee's respective works. Is that what you're after? They use the same quotes in their works. Only Whelton is, surprisingly, like many Catholic apologists terrible in his citations. To illustrate the point he will give a quote from Augustine and reference it as "City of God", which ins't of much help because it's such a huge book. I thought to reference (using CCEL as a guide) all my quotes properly, hence I give the title of a chapter so that instead of just citing Origen Commentaries on Matthew I cite it as Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew Book XII.11 -The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him. Further I don't know why the other Orthodox writers aren't mentioned in your reply. I note that the other two complainants here don't recognise them as Orthodox writers at all, such as Whelton, Anastos, Carlton, Sherrard and, Papadakis. I would also appreciate if the same application is made on the other part of the same article (I cited examples above that are statements made that are not supported) Montalban (talk) 4:37 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)

--05:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Further, to show my own good faith I'd re-written Orthodox understanding of Catholicity sub-section along those lines I proposed, which it seems to me you have missed as well. Montalban (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

There is also the difficulty that by far the greater part of the section supposedly on Eastern Orthodox objections cites no Eastern Orthodox sources for its contents and consists solely of an editor's own considerations. Esoglou (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that as it stands now it offers no Eastern Orthodox objections????

Montalban (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, if you read carefully, he is saying that the section on Eastern Orthodox objections does not cite Eastern Orthodox sources.

A quick review of the very looong (too long) section, suggests that Esoglou's criticism has some validity but perhaps needs some qualification. First of all, a number of Church Fathers are cited that are not necessarily Catholic or Orthodox. The problem here is that these are primary sources. Primary sources can be used but must be used with much care as one can easily engage in original research. For this reason, secondary sources such as Schaff (or Lossky or Romanides) are preferable.

NB: Lossky and Romanides are clearly a different category of source than Schaff; Lossky and Romanides being theologians and Schaff being more of a popular historian. Nonetheless, we should report on their interpretation of Church Fathers and Church Councils rather than citing the fathers and the councils directly. We are writing an encyclopedia article not a theological treatise.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to get seriously into this discussion. But maybe I should clarify that, yes, my remark regards the fact that an Anglican (or Baptist, or Congregationalist, or ... but let's stick with A for Anglican) editor too could quote Athanasius or Basil or Chrysostom or, for that matter, Schaff, but unless that editor showed that the Anglican church or Anglican theologians quote Athanasius or whomever for that purpose, that editor's contribution would only be about objections to Roman primacy, not about Anglican objections to Roman primacy. How much of this long contribution is really about Eastern Orthodox objections to Roman primacy? I implicitly asked this question, but I don't intend to suggest an answer, positive or negative.

Mine was no more than a passing remark. I strongly suspect that Montalban has, at least for the most part, culled these citations of Augustine and Hilary of Poitiers and all the rest from sites that (like some Wikipedia editors?) prefer to profess a creed of "Οὐ πιστεύω" (I do not believe, Non credo), instead of a creed that begins "Πιστεύω" (I believe, Credo). And if the Eastern Orthodox Church and the generality of Eastern Orthodox theologians correspond to what these sites present, then I accept that any negative response that may seem suggested by my remark has no validity, and I withdraw it. Esoglou (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

For example Montalban, what about this reference from "The mystical theology of the Eastern Church", By Vladimir Lossky, pg 16: “The catholicity of the Church, far from being the privilege of any one see or specific centre, is realised rather in the richness and multiplicity of the local traditions which bear witness unanimously to a single Truth.” Isn't that almost identical to what you have written elsewhere? But as it's not a primary source, nobody can have any objections to its use. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The church fathers are Eastern Orthodox sources. Furthermore I cited other than these, such as Whelton, Papadakis et al. who are Eastern Orthodox. However I have also included Catholics authors, such as Congar, that agree with the Orthodox on some points too. This to me is simply another case of multiple claims being made that I've not provided evidences that are there in black and white. I see no acting in good faith being applied here. Fix the Catholic section first.

Laurel, I don't know the purpose of quoting that instead of Sherrard who says the same thing would do. Montalban (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not the that theFathers are not sources, it's that they're primary sources. That is, they're almost too good or too close to the issue to be used. Strangely, in wiki, unless somebody gives an opinion in support of a primary source, the primary source should not be used. I've run up against this strange rule in other articles and it is infuriating. Re Congar et al - yes - use more of these. Just maybe in notes? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What's that got to do with Sherrard? For you I'm happy to (and this will take a while) re-write the article to give the quotes where they're given in Whelton and Abbe Guettee's respective works. Is that what you're after? They use the same quotes in their works. Only Whelton is, surprisingly, like many Catholic apologists terrible in his citations. To illustrate the point he will give a quote from Augustine and reference it as "City of God", which ins't of much help because it's such a huge book. I thought to reference (using CCEL as a guide) all my quotes properly, hence I give the title of a chapter so that instead of just citing Origen Commentaries on Matthew I cite it as Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew Book XII.11 -The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him. Further I don't know why the other Orthodox writers aren't mentioned in your reply. I note that the other two complainants here don't recognise them as Orthodox writers at all, such as Whelton, Anastos, Carlton, Sherrard and, Papadakis. I would also appreciate if the same application is made on the other part of the same article (I cited examples above that are statements made that are not supported) Montalban (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Laurel, I've reformatted quote [197] to show it's 'secondary' context in L'Abbe Guettée's work "The Papacy" (edited by K. Kirwin. Is this the sort of thing you mean??

I'm more than happy to refer to L'Abbe Guettée's work so people can read it for themselves

Montalban (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm continually amazed at some comments

Someone had said they it would be good if there were a book called an "Eastern Orthodox critique of the Catholic Church"

I've cited one of Whelton's books here - the whole title of the book

Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition

I've also cited another of his books

Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims

as well as

Carlton, C., (1999) The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church

It's obvious to me what these books are about.

So apart from certain people giving critique on material they don't understand they also refuse to critique the Catholic section - which I've cited examples of above.

Montalban (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Primary vs. secondary sources

Laurel Lodged wrote: "The issue is not the that the Fathers are not sources, it's that they're primary sources. That is, they're almost too good or too close to the issue to be used. Strangely, in wiki, unless somebody gives an opinion in support of a primary source, the primary source should not be used. I've run up against this strange rule in other articles and it is infuriating. Re Congar et al - yes - use more of these. Just maybe in notes?"

I grant that the "rules" concerning the use of primary sources can be complex, confusing and downright "infuriating".

The policy is set forth in this section of WP:RS but it really doesn't provide much of a detailed explanation.

Let me share my perspective with the caveat that this is my personal take on the topic and I don't guarantee that it matches the consensus opinion of Wikipedia editors.

Let's start with the Bible. The Bible is clearly a primary source. It can be used reliably as support that something is written in the Bible. For example, we can report that Mark 14:58 reports that Jesus said, "Tear this temple down and I will raise it up in 3 days." However, we cannot then say that, in saying this, Jesus was referring to his own crucifixion and resurrection because that would be interpreting the Bible. Of course, we all know that practically every Christian understands this passage to be referring to Jesus' body and not to the actual temple made of stones. But to establish that linkage according to Wikipedia rules, we have to cite a secondary source such as Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible here. If we didn't have rules like this, then some editor named Montclair could come along and insert his personal interpretation of what the passage meant and we'd have no clear rule by which to forbid it.

Now, one might say, "Hey! If Gill is a reliable secondary source then why aren't the Church Fathers reliable secondary sources also?". My response would be that it is a fine line which depends on what assertion the Church Fathers are being used to support. The problem is that the theological thought of the Church Fathers makes them primary sources in a way that Gill could never be. So, if we are discussing what the Church Fathers think about the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, it would be better to present what a reliable secondary source thinks is relevant about the topic. Presumably, the secondary source would cite many of the same Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils that Montalban has cited. So, why do we need the secondary source rather than just accepting the primary sources that Montalban has presented? Because we don't know who Montalban is, what his credentials are and whether he is accurately presenting the views of the Eastern Orthodox Church or just his own personal crackpot theories. I say this without any intention of maligning Montalban. I would guess that much of what he wrote does represent the mainstream of the EO argument against papal primacy. But, as long as it is Montalban who says it, I can never be 100% sure. How do I know that he hasn't cherry picked his sources or cited them out of context? How do I know that he hasn't added one or two pet theories of his own that, in his brilliance, he has decided to share with the Wikipedia reading audience?

Let me emphasize that this is not meant to be picking on Montalban. It would apply to Laurel Lodged, Esoglou, myself and any other Wikipedia editor. The gold standards here are reliable sources and verifiablity.

Earlier, I suggested that we look for citations from Lossky, Romanides or any other Orthodox theologian. I would like to qualify that suggestion by noting that Lossky and Romanides can themselves be considered primary sources in some contexts so care must be used in citing them.

What would be ideal would be to find a book titled "Eastern Orthodox critique of the Catholic Church" or "Eastern Orthodox arguments against Papal Primacy". If we found such a book and summarized its contents here, that would be the best way to deflect possible charges of original research.

As for who is and is not an Orthodox source, I confess ignorance of the names mentioned by Montalban. If he says they are Orthodox, I will take it on good faith that they are.

I think the concern expressed by Esoglou was more about citing sources such as Augustine and Tertullian who were neither Catholic nor Orthodox (in the sense that they lived before there was a distinction between the two churches). It is curious to have the article cite Augustine (who is often maligned by Orthodox writers such as Romanides) in criticism of a Catholic doctrine. This is a case which cries out to be supported by a citation to a secondary source.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Athanasius

In the article text, St. Athanasius is quoted as having written: "Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

The reference is to this letter. Please forgive my ignorance. Who is he referring to when he refers to "others (who) have occupied the churches by violence"? How is this quote related to the issue of "Primacy of the Roman Pontiff"?

This appears to be a case where a citation to a primary source is possibly dodgy. There's no clear linkage to the issue of papal primacy. NB: I'm not saying that there's no linkage. I'm just saying it's not obvious to the unsophisticated reader. It would be preferable in this instance to cite a reliable secondary source who uses this quote in support of an argument against papal primacy.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Athanasius must surely be talking of the Arians (cf. the second snippet from this source). I wish I had access to the exact text of what Athanasius wrote. No snippet comes up when I search that authoritative source for phrases like "true church" or "tradition". I would like to be assured that the perhaps questionable source that is cited in the article isn't one of those secondary-or-further-down-the-line ones that are encountered on the Internet virus-like misquoting a genuine primary source. Esoglou (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I was also thinking of the Arians but I figured it was "better to be keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt". The source given is www.catholicapologetics.info which attributes the text to Coll. Selecta SS.Eccl.Patrum, Caillau and Guillou Vol. 32, pp. 411-412. For now, I'm willing to believe that the quote is authentic. My concern is that the text of the letter doesn't say anything about papal primacy. Thus, we have no way to know if Athanasius was making these comments in opposition to papal primacy. (I strongly suspect he was not.) If he was not discussing papal primacy, then he is being quoted out of context and whoever inserted this text (I'm guessing it was Montalban) has performed original research by using a principle asserted by Athanasius to support an argument that Athanasius was not making. This problem could be rectified if we could find a reliable source that did argue against papal primacy by invoking this assertion of Athanasius. Failing that, we should remove this section on Athanasius. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. My comment about my wish for greater certainty about the text given on traditionalist Catholic sites was only by the way. Forget it. Esoglou (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Apostolic throne

This section attacks the Catholic Church's use of Augustine to support the concept of the See of Rome as "the" Apostolic Throne. Once again, the problem here is that all of the citations are to primary sources, thus putting the text of the section into the position of a secondary source. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source that cites secondary sources, not primary ones. It is not our job to analyze Augustine's position on papal primacy or the soundness or falseness of the Catholic Church's invocation of Augustine in support of papal primacy. It is our job to report on what reliable secondary sources say about the matter. If we can find a reliable secondary source that makes this critique of the Catholic Church's (allegedly improper) use of Augustine to support papal primacy, then we should cite it. If we can't, then we should delete this section. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is too long

Montalban has rejected a number of times the assertion that this article is too long. Perhaps he is not familiar with WP:SIZE. WP:SIZE#Readability asserts:

"A page of about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. At 50k and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style - see WP:SIZERULE for "a rule of thumb".

WP:SIZERULE says:

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

Readable prose size	What to do
> 100 KB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 KB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
> 50 KB	May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 KB	Length alone does not justify division
< 1 KB	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? SeeWikipedia:Stub.

If you type "intitle:Primacy of the Roman Pontiff" into the Wikipedia Search Box, you will find that the current article is 162 KB (26,533 words). Even if we make allowance for the numerous and lengthy footnotes, the actual readable prose is almost certainly in excess of 100KB. For comparison, I note that "intitle:History of the Orthodox Church" tells us that the article History of the Orthodox Church is 127 KB (18,732 words) and "intitle:Eastern Orthodox Church" tells us that the article Eastern Orthodox Church is 151 KB (22,113 words) . Thus, this article is longer than either of those two articles.

Wikipedia typically has long articles on substantial topics such as the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. The article on the Catholic Church was pruned severely because it had gotten over 200kb long. "intitle:Catholic Church" tells us that article is now 90 KB (12,136 words) although that is probably too short. Discussions on Talk:Catholic Church concluded that the "right" length was probably somewhere between 100-125kb long. As Laurel commented, if Montalban does not wield the knife soon, someone else will have to do it.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite the case. Your suggestion was that the ORTHODOX section was too long in proportion to the CATHOLIC section.

I said your resoning was illogical. Take this proposal...

I propose shortening the opening section IF you're now only concerned about the over-all length of the entire article

Further, you have not addressed here at all my proposals to re-write it - instead you just repeat a criticism

Montalban (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned with BOTH the over-all length of the article AND the relative lengths of both sections. Moreover, as I've said above, I am not convinced that there should be a division by branch/denomination. Instead of such a division, I prefer Laurel Lodged's proposal.

What are your proposals to re-write the article?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already made my proposals known here too. I don't see any reason to contiually answer questions I've already provided answers to

Montalban (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

None of the discussion provided to date has been about the whole article. It's already been several weeks of 'discussion' where people so concerned could have already attempted to amend the Catholic section by both its length, and for citations needed.

Montalban (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In good faith

I've already noted that I have, and where I have modified part of the Orthodox section. I had asked for comments on this if it were acceptable. All I got was repeats of statements of rules and requirements, then questions asking me for information I've already provided.

Those who are truly concerned about the application of rules to the whole article have not met me at any half-way point nor shown that they wish to ammend any other part of the article other than that which I wrote.

This has not happened. Montalban (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have shortened the article. From those adverse to the article one THEN added a complaint that it was too long, with a wiki-note calling for others to help edit it.

I take this as a lack of acting in good faith.

Montalban (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate and discouraged use of quotes

I made two changes which Montalban has reverted. Rather than initiate an edit war, I will explain the rationale for my edits in the hopes of getting Montalban's agreement to let my edits stand. I put a {{quotefarm}} tag on the whole section titled " Orthodox Christian arguments against papal supremacy". This seems a clear-cut case of a quotefarm. A cursory scan suggests that more than 75% of the section text consists of quotes. Now, it is a common conception that providing lots of quotes cements one's argument by providing proof. However, this approach is not considered good writing style. There is a guidance essay titled Wikipedia:Quotations; the relevant section can be found at WP:QUOTEFARM. The relevant points that apply here are the first (" "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style;") and the last ("Longer quotations may be hidden in the reference as a footnote to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability.")

Montalban deleted the quotes with the edit summary "shortening the article". His deletions do accomplish that but at the cost of removing valuable quotes which help the reader verify and understand the assertions being made. I restored the quotations and pushed them into the references per the last point in WP:QUOTEFARM. Perhaps Montalban is unaware that text that is in the footnotes does not count towards the size limitations in WP:SIZE. Only the main body of the text counts; pictures, footnotes and other "bottom material" does not count. Thus, pushing quotes into the footnotes is a way of getting around the size limitations without losing the quotes. If the surviving main body text is written well, the moving of quotes into the footnotes also improves readability.

Now, I will say that some editors such as User:LoveMonkey overuse this technique resulting in humongous footnote sections with some quotes going on for several paragraphs. That sort of approach is undesirable because it makes the footnotes section unwieldy and also runs the risk of copyright infringement. The quotes in this article aren't that long and so I think the article would benefit from having them presented in the footnotes. It seems to me that this sort of thing is common practice in academic journal articles.

If Montalban agrees, I will restore my edits which pushed the quotes into the footnotes.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ha. First article is way too long, now the quotes would be valuable quotes which help the reader verify and understand the assertions being made

There doesn't seem anything right with what I've done

And still not addressed my concerns about the other part of the article.

Montalban (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I apparently wrote too much and so perhaps it was too difficult to digest. Let me try again. Numerous, extensive quotes are discouraged in the article text. They are more suitable for footnotes although not to excess. Length of text in footnotes doesn't count against size limits although excessive use of quotes in footnotes is discouraged. Please read WP:SIZE and WP:QUOTEFARM for the relevant Wikipedia guidelines on these topics. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Leo I

A section reads

The doctrine of the sedes apostolica (apostolic see) which states that every bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, possesses the full authority granted to this position. This power, then, is inviolable on the grounds that it was established by God himself and so not bound to any individual. Pope Leo I (440-461), with the aid of Roman law, solidified this doctrine by making the bishop of Rome the legal heir of Peter. According to Leo, the apostle Peter continued to speak to the Christian community through his successors as bishop of Rome.[citation needed]

The first sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. Probably as simple as removing of the word 'which' or saying

The doctrine of the sedes apostolica (apostolic see) is a document which states that every bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, possesses the full authority granted to this position

Montalban (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Pushing quotes into footnotes

There's no sense doing this given your complaint that they're primary sources.

Wait until the re-write.

Montalban (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

OK... if you're planning to rewrite the article using secondary sources, I will gladly wait. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Richard again engaged in pedantic wrangling as a cover to frustrate when Richard knows that he could compromise and provide input to correctly add data rather than use policy to suppress it. Also the Orthodox accept St Peter as the Patriarch of Antioch not specifically Rome. [1] And Richard is so POV biased he is fighting to have the ancient churches of East and their perspectives ignored and neglected in this article which they have a part in the history of. Because he obviously doesn't want to people to know why the East would disagree with his POV. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The list of complaints against the Orthodox section is amazing Although it will take up my weekend I'm happy to comply with the application of this rule, because I'm sure it will go to show how selectively it is applied - no one will cite the sections in the other part of the article Montalban (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The primacy of the Pope as the basis of St Ignatius' removal from the list of recognized saints

A small note as there appears to be a very current movement within the Roman Catholic church to un-saint, unrecognized and or remove St Ignatius from veneration. What might be behind this is that Ignatius of Antioch says very clearly that he was the third bishop of Antioch and he was made the third bishop of Antioch by the FIRST BISHOP of Antioch ST PETER. This controversy should be mentioned in this article as it is valid to understanding why the East simply does not accept Papal Primacy along the lines of its Roman Catholic apologists. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How could anyone imagine that the Church of Rome would cease to venerate Saint Ignatius of Antioch, who venerated her so highly, addressing her with a long series of laudatory adjectives much more abundant than all those, even taken together, that he had attributed to the other churches to which he wrote on his way to martyrdom? His feastday is on Monday week, 17 October. A day for special prayer that we may all be fully part of that ἀγάπη that the great bishop martyr said the Church of Rome presides over.

Ἰγνάτιος ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος τῇ ἠλεημένῃ ἐν μεγαλειότητι Πατρὸς ὑψίστου καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μὀνου Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἐκκλησίᾳ ἠγαπημένῃ καὶ πεφωτισμένῃ ἐν θελήματι τοῦ θελήσαντος τὰ πάντα, ἅ ἐστιν κατὰ ἀγάπην Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, ἥτις καὶ προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου Ῥωμαίων, ἀξιόθεος ἀξιοπρεπὴς ἀξιομακάριστος ἀξιοέπαινος άξιεπίτευκτος ἀξίαγνος καὶ προκαθημένῃ τῆς ἀγάπης χριστώνυμος πατρώνυμος, ἣν καὶ ἀσπάζομαι ἐν ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Υἱοῦ Πατρός, κατὰ σάρκα καὶ πνεῦμα ἡνωμένοις πάσῃ ἐντολῇ αὐτοῦ, πεπληρωμένοις χάριτος Θεοῦ ἀδιακρίτως καὶ ἀποδιυλισμένοις ἀπὸ πάντος ἀλλοτρίου χρώματος πλεῖστα ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν ἀμώμως χαίρειν. (English translations are available here. Esoglou (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is an outside link showing an Orthodox priest trying to explain to a Roman Catholic apologist why they are wrong on their take on the Orthodoxy perspective on Papal Primacy. You are wrong Esoglou and you are wrong just like this... This is nothing new. [2] We happened to have ecumenical councils and write and canonize the bible without the Pope. Not one ecumenical council was held in Rome, not one, why is that? As if Jesus had ever even been to Rome or France.. So why now is Rome to have dominance? French delusions. We Orthodox are whole, we are complete. There is no theology other than Orthodox theology. Revelation is higher than reason, Orthodox gnosiology is the truth. Ignatius died for the primordial light, the light of Tabor not for any Pope. [3] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable POV, how come there is no mention of the Pseudo-Isidore?

How is it that there is an article about a supposed 2000 year old institution and there is absolutely NO MENTION of the Pseudo-Isidore? In specific the lie called the Donation of Constantine? Why is that only a "see also link" considering what the real world ramifications are for such a thing in the face of what it tried to do to the Eastern position on the Papacy? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Well after the Donation of Constantine was shown to be a fake it was still used by the RCC to promote their agenda. I always have held to a belief that a church's case must be on shaky ground if it resorts to false evidence

Montalban (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I also agree these should be mentioned. The "Donation of Constantine" and the "Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals" were influential in promoting papal primacy (and this is mentioned in enough sources). Cody7777777 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you draft something here Cody and then we can add it to the article body? Thanx LoveMonkey (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there could be a sub-section about this (which could be titled the "Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals and the Donation of Constantine" or "Medieval forgeries") in the "Historical development of the doctrine" section, perhaps before the section "Council of Reims (1049)". There should be at least some mentions like "During the Middle Ages, papal primacy was also promoted using influential forgeries, like the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals and the Donation of Constantine." The importance of Pseudo-Isidore for the medieval papacy could also be underlined, similarly like it was done in the following book, "Pseudo-Isidore must be classed as one of the most influential fabrications in the history of medieval (and possibly also modern) Europe....To the papacy Pseudo-Isidore proved a heaven-sent gift, because the work contained in legal language exactly what the papacy had postulated for so long....these forgeries very powerfully contributed to the emergence of a uniform pattern of thought which was at once ancient, legal, Christian and papal. This unifying effect of the great forgeries should not be underestimated. Pseudo -Isidore became one of the most important source books for later collections of canon law down to Gratian in the mid- twelfth century." Regarding the "Donation of Constantine", it could also be stated that it was used to promote not only papal ecclesiastical supremacy over the other patriarchs, but also the temporal supremacy of the pope over political rulers. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent I would like to include V. Ross' work from Cambridge on how the Papacy lead to the mass destruction of the Irish, English and forced allegiance to the Roman Catholic papacy by way of Norman conquest. [4] How might the idea of Papal Primacy be worded to show its negative effects on not just the birth place of Christianity (the East) but also on Orthodox European groups, pre Norman, French conquest of them that is. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Primacy of Peter the apostle

There is a paragraph towards the end of this section that starts with "Raymond Brown argues that..." but is cited to McBrien. Is there a reason for this? I could imagine that perhaps Brown is cited by McBrien. If this is the case then we should have the reference cite Brown with the comment ("cited in Richard McBrien The Church (New York: HarperOne, 2008) p. 63") if that is what is appropriate. However, since I am unfamiliar with the source, it would be preferable if someone who knows the source could do the heavy lifting. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The part within the inner quotes is from this book. It is thus from a book edited by Brown and probably was written by Brown himself. The part not within the inner quotes is probably by McBrien, and the Brown part must be quoted by him. I don't have either book. Esoglou (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It makes no sense to me to say Quoting Raymond Brown, McBrien says: It could be simply McBrien, quoted in (or by) Raymond Brown says: Montalban (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The quotation within the quotation comes from Brown. It is evidently Brown who is quoted, not who is doing the quoting. Esoglou (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I happen to be aware of what is meant. However the way it's stated is clumsy Montalban (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

An effort to improve it would be appreciated. Esoglou (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. What the article text says and what the reference says. If the assertion is unassailable, we could just say "The sky is blue." If it's important to tell the reader who said it, we would write "According to Raymond Brown, the sky is blue." This is especially important when using direct quotes as is the case here. Sometimes it's important to specify the source, so we would write "McBrien points out that although Drs. Red, Green and Yellow argue for the sky being purple, Brown insists that the sky is blue." I think it's OK to say, in this situation, "Raymond Brown argues..." What needs to be fixed, IMO, is the citation. We need to cite Brown as cited by McBrien. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT provides the format for doing this.

Smith, John. Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Paul Jones (ed.). Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What Brown said (in this book, as shown on Google Books) is only this part: "what was truly normative was not a group of writings but the Spirit acting within the living church. It was church usage that led [the Council of] Trent to determine which books should be accepted as canonical; so it also is church usage that determines the degree of normative authority (canonicity) to be attributed to a NT practice or doctrine". The opening part ("The main feature of Early Catholicism—sacramentalism, hierarchy, and dogma—were meaningful within the life of the Church of the New Testament and of subsequent centuries and that is why the Church included the later books in the canon of Sacred Scripture. Consequently,") which introduces the quotation from Brown's New Jerome Commentary, is from another source, either a different book by Brown in which he quoted his New Jerome Commentary or a book by somebody else. The citation given indicates that the statement as a whole is from a book by McBrien, not by Brown. The statement as a whole is then "according to McBrien" (who quotes Brown as illustration of what he says), not "according to Brown" (who was not responsible for the opening part of the statement). I leave it to others to decide what to do. Esoglou (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've rewritten the article text to capture what you wrote above. However, I am now confused as to what this quote has to do with Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It seems more related to the determination of which books were considered canonical and there doesn't seem to be any direct connection to the question of papal primacy. Am I just being dense here? I vaguely see a assertion that "church usage should determine the degree of normative authority to be attributed to a NT practice or doctrine" as applying to the question of hierarchial or collegial ecclesiology as appealing to "NT practice or doctrine" but this seems a bit of a leap to me and I would prefer to know that this is explicitly what McBrien is talking about. Is it? If not, we may be engaging in synthesis. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that I consider not just the form but the real content, I think both this paragraph and the preceding one are off-topic. If someone disagrees, they can put one or other or both back with some indication of what they have to do with the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Esoglou (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to re-edit

Pseudo-Richard offered to re-edit this article to put a number of the quotes into notes. I now invite him to do this, especially regarding the segment on Keys of the Kingdom

The Rock section will be expanded when I get my William Webster book in the post and can then give secondary reference context for those primary quotes. It can then be re-edited into the notes then

Montalban (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I am deferring the "Keys of the Kingdom" section for now until I get a better handle on what you are trying to say in that section. So I started with the "Council of Jerusalem" section. I pushed the Eusebius quote into the citation and I think you can see that we have preserved all the material while hopefully making the text more readable. I didn't do the John Chrysostom quote because there was no sentence on which to hang the citation. I could try to come up with a sentence that summarizes the quote but I'd be guessing at what your intent was. Better for you to write a sentence that summarizes the point of the quote. Then, if you still need help setting up the citation, I'll do it for you. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You have done a good job. I'm wracking my brains as to do this for John Chrysostom

For the keys the essence is that the ECFS don't ascribe the keys as being with Peter alone, or rather that the whole church holds them, that other apostles (John the Son of Thunder) hold them

Montalban (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Some comments that I don't intend to follow up and that I am presenting only for consideration by others.

Unless radically modified, the long addition on you know what is obviously destined to be removed some day, probably many months away - that depends on the tenacity of editors - not only because of its disproportionate length, but also for its original-research character. For instance, it does not simply present what Chrysostom says. If it did that, in exact quotation, the objection that a reference to the source of the text is a primary source would in my opinion not be a valid objection, since the source would only be proving, better than any secondary source could, what Chrysostom did say. But for now, let that question of "primary sources" pass. What I want to draw attention to is that what we are given here is not what Chrysostom said, but instead an original-research argument based on quotations from Chrysostom. A sourced argument based on what Chrysostom said could easily be produced in the contrary sense without any original research by instead citing, for instance, the footnotes on pages 219 and following of [this book. Surely Montalban can find sources to cite about what Chrysostom's statements meant, instead of giving an original-research personal interpretation of their meaning.

The same holds, for instance, of what is presented regarding Ignatius of Antioch. Take the phrase, "Thus when he writes to Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna he states that God is Polycarp’s bishop, implying that there is no intermediary between the local bishop and God". The phrase, "implying that ..." could not be more evidently an example of original research. So too, "It is true that the Roman Church presides ..." is an original-research comment on a mutilated quotation from Ignatius. I say "mutilated", because the inexact quotation given omits the phrase "which presides over love". The Wikipedia editor gives no Internet link to the actual text of what Ignatius wrote to facilitate its checking, and he almost certainly did not check it himself. He should not be accused of having chosen to hide the phrase, for he may have in all good faith copied the mutilated text quite exactly from whatever source he is actually using.

Other frequent unsourced statements are on the lines of "X is used by Catholic apologists to suggest ..." By the way, to disprove something, you need an argument against it, not just an argument against some argument for it. And even more by the way, Montalban elsewhere objects to having any mention of arguments for in a section about objections. But even apart from the fallacious character of these statements, they too, as now presented, are just original research. Esoglou (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I also saw some of these flaws although not at the level of detail that Esoglou documented. However, having just concluded an exhausting dispute over the question of whether Candidian presided at the First Council of Ephesus, I figured it was time to be less confrontational and more collegial. In the end, we will need to find secondary sources who make these arguments. It looks to be a substantial amount of work so I thought it would be better for now to wait and see all of what Montalban had to offer before starting the task of looking for secondary sources for each argument. Also, I'm kind of busy in real life and so I'm not quite up to the task of looking over each quote individually and sourcing it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I could go on this case-by-case. Such as the statement John Chrysostom "For (John) the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now"[52]

Which is prefaced by… Such an interpretation, it is claimed,[49] has been accepted by many Church Fathers;

ref [49] is the reference of Webster who uses Chrysostom and others, I could put as cited by Webster after every quote.

for the Council of Jerusalem Whelton (p153 - Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims) uses Chrysostom although I had not cited this yet. Which leads me to the main point

The main point is I've noted I've NOT finished, I've stated I'm still waiting for a book of Websters.

I appreciate I gave the week-end as my own self-imposed goal. Obviously I have not met that - though there was no requirement to do so by that particular date. I have however put forward my re-writes as they've been done to show good faith that I am in fact doing this. If one particular editor is still wishing to say nothing positive, even a veiled threat about what might happen to the article in the future, then so be it. Montalban (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The need for secondary sources

[NB: In what follows, I use Webster as an example of a reliable source. I haven't read Webster and I don't know who he is. I'm just using him because Montalban mentioned him in a comment above.]

Forgive me if some of this seems pedantic but it seems that Montalban doesn't fully understand the importance of citing secondary sources and I'm not sure what he knows and doesn't know so I will present as much of the case for using secondary sources as I can.

The first critical need for secondary sources is based on intellectual and academic honesty. Unless an editor has personally read the works of the Church Fathers, it is dishonest to cite their works without citing the source that provided the quote. If Webster (for example) did the research and read the works of Athanasius and provided a quote from one of his works, then we must cite Webster as the source for the Athanasius quote. This gives Webster due credit for his work.

From Wikipedia's perspective, there's another reason to cite secondary sources. The identity of all Wikipedia editors must be considered to be anonymous or at least of dubious credibility. We can hope to determine what Webster's credentials are. Does he have a Ph.D.? Is he a member of the faculty of a university or a member of the clergy? These questions can be answered. But, who the heck is Montalban? Or Esoglou? Or Pseudo-Richard? What are our credentials? Montalban can tell us that he has a Ph.D. Can we prove it or disprove it? He can claim to be anybody in the world. We have no way of testing the truth of his claim. Wikipedia editors are effectively anonymous and even if they choose to reveal their identity, we have no way of determining if that is their true identity or a fraudulent claim. Would you be able to prove or disprove that I am not Barack Obama?

Why is the above point important? The ignorance of who Wikipedia editors are are means that, when Montalban or any other editor makes an argument, I have no basis to test their credentials to make this argument. I cannot tell whether Montalban is using the Athanasius quote in an intellectually defensible way or if he is distorting Athanasius' intent by lifting the quote out of context. If you think about it, Wikipedia's criterion for reliable sources is quite low. All that is required is that the material has been published in some way that has had somebody else's review (i.e. a magazine, a newspaper or a book that is not self-published). There is often a lot of debate in Wikipedia as to how reliable a source is and whether source X is more reliable than source Y. However, in all cases, reliable sources are required and the fevered logic of a Montalban OR an Esoglou are not considered reliable under any circumstances.

At the end of the day, I don't want to know what Montalban thinks about what Athanasius wrote. I want to know what reliable sources such as Webster think about what Athanasius wrote. That is why it is important not only to cite Webster as the source of a quote; it's important to quote Webster's point about the quote.

This is the rationale behind WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well done. With some retouches, it could be made one of the Wikipedia essays. Esoglou (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Psuedo-Richard for the sermon. I thought we'd already agreed that we were going to let me do secondary sourcing - and that I was doing it.

I remind you that I sourced a statement from Whelton, and then gave the quotes he uses. This seems like another case of someone not reading what I wrote and ploughing on ahead with the lessons they wish to give me. As you say we have different time signatures I suggest you search for the text "I could go on this case-by-case." I would suggest you read it. Montalban (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Webster - referenced - says that many ECFs believe that the keys weren't given exclusive to the one Apostle - Peter. This is stated in the article. Followed by this are a number of quotes from ECFs used by that author to support that view.

What is the problem? He's an author who's published a number of books on this. He's got books on this going back decades.

Montalban (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So... I confess to not reading each edit that you are making to the article and thus I may have a mistaken picture of what you do and do not understand and what you are and are not doing in the rest of the article. At the moment, what strikes me is that, in the "Council of Jerusalem" section, we quote what Eusebius and John Chrysostom said but we don't say what Whelton said about those quotes. What is Whelton's stance? Does he think that Eusebius and John Chrysostom were attacking papal primacy? Or does he think that Orthodox scholars and clergy cite Eusebius and John Chrysostom to support anti-papal polemics?

Presumably Whelton is not a pure Catholic apologist and I would guess that he is probably not an Orthodox apologist either. From the title of the cited book, I'm guessing that he is stepping back from the fray and presenting a relatively dispassionate and objective account of the two perspectives on "Papal Monarchy". If so, then he is a great source to cite. However, to lift the quotes of primary sources from Whelton without presenting what Whelton had to say is to make the use of the primary sources yours rather than Whelton's. So we are left once again with Montalban's argument against papal primacy rather than Whelton's analysis as presented in the book. As I asserted before, nobody wants to read Montalban's polemic against papal primacy. They are much more likely to be interested in hearing what Whelton has to say. Please let Whelton speak. If he doesn't say what you think the article should say in this particular section about Orthodox opposition to papal primacy, then find a different secondary source that does make the argument that you want to make. Shouldn't be too hard; I imagine there are loads of pro-Orthodox scholars who have written anti-papal polemics. Find one or two of the more prominent ones and cite them.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of S K Ray

I've noticed yet another selective application of a rule.

I have mentioned Webster as a secondary source. For some reason this is now important, though I've used Michael Whelton several times.

I note that Catholic apologetics refers quite a lot to Steven K Ray. (I used him too, but importantly he exist as a source before I came to this article).

Who is S K Ray? Why aren't these questions being asked of this? No page number is given. How do we know what S K Ray says of the matter?

Well this doesn't seem to matter as some chose to pick-apart one section that doesn't agree with them which is being addressed

Montalban (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

First Council of Constantinople and its context

I could be reading the source wrong, but to me the cited source Rome and the Eastern Churches By Aidan Nichols, Op Nichols p202 gives two dates (in their footnotes) for the response of Rome, but this is not mentioned in the article

Montalban (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "two dates" you are referring to. Can you be more specific? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned this... they're in the footnotes, p202

one dates the response as from the year 500

Montalban (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Would Richard or Montalban kindly point me to where the Wikipedia article speaks of what the Nichols footnote calls "this Roman response" that called Rome "sedes prima Petri apostoli". I can't find where the article says anything whatever about it. Marot, cited by Nichols, attributes the phrase to Damasus I, while Dvornik places "this Roman response" well over a century after the council of 381, but the article supports neither Marot nor Dvornik, since it makes no mention whatever of the question. And even Nichols (still less the article itself) does not say that the phrase formed part of the reaction of the Roman synod of 382 to the canon of the council of the year before. Apologies if I am asking about something quite obvious to you, but I fail to see what the discussion raised here can be about. Esoglou (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I get it now... On page 202, footnote 22 cites the 382 synod called by Damasus to Marot but also comments that "Dvornik would cite this Roman response to c. 500". Presumably, the authors are indicating that Dvornik thinks that Rome didn't object to canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople until about 500C.E. when Symmachus was pope. I think there is not enough information to mention this in the article unless someone goes and finds Dvornik's book Byzance et la primauté romaine (Byzantium and the Roman primacy - 1964). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me whatsoever. If one accepts that book then they must accept that they themselves note that Dvornik puts the response as almost 100 years later. It's like saying "I accept this as a source EXCEPT where he notes other information"

I happen to have Dvornik's book anyway but all I would do is provide the EXACT same information in the book - that others place the response at a later date.

However the book notes that Dvornik's is only but ONE different date. Another historian puts the response at a different date again

What is important is in the article it says that Damasus responded but the VERY SOURCE cited notes that the date of the response is debatable. This should be conveyed in the article, or another source used... otherwise it seems to be selective use of evidence.

Montalban (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OK... maybe I should have said it this way... "I don't feel comfortable putting much in the article text based solely on the footnote in Nichols & Nichols. I would want to know what Dvornik said before basing text on the Nichols & Nichols footnote". If you know more than is in the footnote and you have sources to back it up, then by all means put something in the article. The fact that there are other sources who mention other dates should certainly be mentioned if this can be sourced. In the end, I'm not convinced that the exact date of the papal response is that important especially given the need to shorten this article rather than lengthen it. That said, we can put in this information for now and see if it survives the inevitable haircut that is long overdue. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated, I don't see that the Nichols footnote 22 must refer to the 382 synod (any more than footnote 23). It is a footnote not to the sentence that mentions the synod, but to the next sentence, which speaks of an alleged use by Damasus I - whether on the occasion of the synod or elsewhere is not stated - of the phrase "sedes prima Petri apostoli". Dvornik thinks the "response" containing the "sedes prima Petri apostoli" phrase was much later than Damasus and his synod. We can apply that Nichols footnote reference to Dvornik to the 382 synod only by synthesis. Wikipedia does not admit synthesis. It should be easy to overcome that problem by quoting Dvornik himself (provided, of course, Dvornik does deny, as I suppose he does, that "A synod held by Pope Damasus I in the following year 382 protested against this raising of the bishop of the new imperial capital, just fifty years old, to a status higher than that of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and stated that the primacy of the Roman see was established by no gathering of bishops but by Christ himself"). Until then, this statement in the article, which says nothing of "sedes prima Petri apostoli", is firmly based on the first sentence in Nichols, which makes no reference to Dvornik even by footnote. So would Montalban kindly quote Dvornik's denial of what is in the article. That simple solution will settle the whole matter. Esoglou (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

When an author is cited as an authority and that author also notes that others give a different date, then there's no synthesis at all. As I noted Dvornik's book I have. He notes it there as per the footnote.

The only 'synthesis' is is to cite someone selectively Montalban (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

To put it another way, the author cited in the article acknowledges dispute over the dating of the Roman reply. He notes two other possible dates. That's not synthesis, because he notes it.

What is selective is this dispute is not mentioned in the article.

Montalban (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A pity that the editor who says he has Dvornik's book in his possession chooses to argue about the meaning of a footnote that may be about a different matter instead of simply quoting whatever the book says in relation to the Wikipedia statement about the 382 synod. It seems that, while a practically effortless contribution from him would lead to modifying the Wikipedia text, he prefers arguing to modifying. In that way the text stays. Esoglou (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there are at least two, if not three, readings of the Nichols & Nichols text here. I retract my earlier interpretation and concur with what I understand to be Esoglou's interpretation.

First, some context... My introduction of the source was to support the sentence "This reaction of the see of Rome to the council held in the emperors' new capital was part of its general reaction to the activities of the Constantinopolitan emperors in church matters, a reaction that led the popes to define their ecclesial position more sharply." I didn't write that sentence but I ran across this quote on page 203 in the Nichols & Nichols text: "The claims of Constantinople compelled Rome to move further along the road to a fully efficacious primacy..." so I figured I'd add a reference to support the sentence.

However, Montalban draws our attention to footnote 22 on page 202 which states "However, Dvornik would date this Roman response to c. 500". It seems clear that Dvornik could not be arguing that the synod occurred "c.500". It seems to me that Nichols & Nichols are reporting that Dvornik thinks that the first use of the phrase "sedes prima Petri apostoli" was "c. 500". IF that is what Dvornik was arguing, it seems a minor point. Other sources may argue a different date for the first use of the phrase. IMO, this is a second-order dispute of the kind that only scholars would care about (which is presumably why Nichols & Nichols stuck it in a footnote).

IMO, the real question is whether the synod of 382 held by Damasus did, in fact, reject canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople or not. I don't sense that there is any dispute about this but I haven't read Dvornik and I'm only a short step away from being totally ignorant about these kinds of things. In a nutshell, the question is whether the "Roman response" referred to by Nichols & Nichols refers to the rejection of canon 3 or to the characterization of Rome as "sedes prima Petri apostoli". If Montalban would enlighten us as to what Dvornik actually wrote, it might shed some light on this issue.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the response was at or after the Synod. Therefore the dating of the sydno affects whether Damasus said something

The text is in effect saying "At the Synod Damasus did..." then adds the note that is in effect saying "However two other opinions give this response at x date and y date".

Montalban (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"It is my understanding" does not count as a reliable source in Wikipedia. The footnote is not attached to the statement in Nichols about the synod, but to the next sentence, which may or may not be about the synod. I am maintaining my assumption of your good faith in saying that you "happen to have Dvornik's book", but your failure to quote Dvornik is putting a strain on it. Esoglou (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

We have to be careful to be sure what it is exactly that the other opinions are saying happened at different dates. You wrote "At the Synod Damasus did...". Well, what is it that Marot says Damasus did at the synod that is put into question by the other sources? Reject canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople? Or use the phrase "sedes prima Petri apostoli"? Surely a quote from Dvornik would help clarify this question. Until then, all this arguing over the meaning of a footnote in Nichols & Nichols is assuredly a huge waste of time. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard - To me it is clear that the footnote goes with the statement regarding the Roman response.

"For this reason Pope Damasus offered no protest against the elevation of Constantinople, even though Alexandria had always been in the past, in close contact with Rome. This event, which has often been considered the first conflict between Rome and Byzantium, actually took place in an altogether friendly atmosphere. Everyone continued to regard the Bishop of Rome as the first bishop of the Empire, and the head of the church"

(emphasis added)

Dvornik (1966), p47. -note this is a different year because I have the English ed.

I don't know how to make this clearer. Dvornik says that the Roman response happened later (not at the time of Damasus). The original citation (in the article) notes he gives a different year.

The original document says two things that are connected

a) Damasus held a synod; and,

b) the response of the synod was a protest and a statement that Rome is in fact a certain position

Esoglou - saying it is my understanding is simply to put into words what EVERYONE offers - an understanding of what the text says - it is simply my way of being polite in phrasing this. It would be an interesting discussion, I am sure if you didn't concentrate on pedantic arguments.

Montalban (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you warmly, Montalban. That is how Wikipedia is built up: by citing what reliable sources say, not by presenting arguments of our own or interpetations of our own. Congratulations for quoting what Dvornik said on the question. Esoglou (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Perhaps it is our fault for having read it incorrectly. It wasn't clear to us. Forgive us for our thick-headedness.

The next step is to understand what Dvornik said happened later (c.500 in the time of Symmachus). What was the response given then that Dvornik sees as the (presumably) first response of Rome to canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople? While we could do what Nichols & Nichols did (i.e. just mention Dvornik in a footnote), I think it would be worthwhile to consider whether we should mention the differing dates in the article text. It's just hard to elevate a point in someone else's footnote into the article body of our text without a good indication that this is actually an important point. Obviously, Nichols & Nichols didn't think it was worth much time or they would have spent more time on it. Does anybody other than Dvornik think this is important?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops... I didn't notice until after I wrote the above comment that Esoglou had gone ahead and inserted the Dvornik quote directly into the article body. I'm not convinced that the point about Dvornik belongs in the article body. Nichols & Nichols thought it wasn't worth more than a footnote in a series of three chapters spanning over 80 pages. Why is it worth so much space in an encyclopedia article that should be a few pages long at most (see WP:SIZE). I think the current text violates WP:UNDUE. Now, it's not an egregious violation but I do think it is an unhelpful digression that could be shoved into a note rather than being treated in the main article body. I might have a different opinion if it could be shown that there are a number of scholars who think this is an important issue. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard - I don't mind where it appears. My original point being that the source cited in the text notes two other dates. It seemed odd that someone would cite that source and not note that HE HIMSELF offers other dates (albeit in his footnotes).

It's amazing how one small point has gone on for so long! Some of it simply based on hostility to anything I might add. Speaking of which...

Esoglou - you're still missing my point about 'understanding'. We all do this; interpret the evidence. Perhaps it's just you're not aware that you're doing it? Montalban (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I won't help you continue your argument. Esoglou (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Montalban (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Athanasius - Council of Sardica

After a bit more thought on this I may pull the Athanasius section from the article, but leaving info about the Council of Sardica. This is because I have difficulty in finding secondary sources for "Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ which my site simply calls a letter "To His Flock", unfortunately he wrote more than one letter to his flock. And I can't find which one this sentence comes from.

Having read more sources on Sardica I am now thoroughly confused, rather the opposite of one might expect. However I see no reason to remove it - my own lack of understanding doesn't make it less valid. Montalban (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Stuffing

The swollen Eastern Orthodox objections section (which by calling itself "Orthodox Christian arguments against papal supremacy" ignores the right of the Oriental Orthodox to call themselves Orthodox Christians) repeatedly indulges in making the claim that Roman Catholics use Argument X (an argument that appears nowhere in the article outside the Eastern Orthodox objections section) and in tacking on to that supposed Argument X a lengthy Counter-Argument Y - not an objection to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, which is the topic of the article, but instead an objection merely to an alleged argument. An example is the new subsection Primacy of the Roman Pontiff#Coryphæus. Whether this is or is not straw man activity, it does appear to be unhelpful stuffing here. A better place for such counter-arguments would be some forum or other that actually does advance the arguments in question. Wikipedia is not a forum. Esoglou (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Stuffing is to do with strawman argument. It's not a strawman to say what someone actually argues!

pp219-220 of Stephen K. Ray's book Upon this rock makes the argument about the Coryphæus. I'll add it to the article.

A more co-operative, less hostile approach might involve you asking for a reference rather than just accusing someone of doing something in breech of the rules.

As to use of the term Orthodox, I'll have to note then everytime you use the term Catholic as opposed to Roman Catholic, or other Catholic churches (Old, Liberal, et al)

Montalban (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way the whole section is called Orthodox Christian arguments against papal supremacy. If you type Orthodox Christian into a Wiki search you get Eastern Orthodox - therefore the very media you're using recognises that it's synonymous with one particular church. Not only are you objecting on a misunderstanding of what a straw-man argument is, your further object on a 'confusion' not apparent to Wikipedia. Montalban (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, "coryphaeus" (κορυφαῖος) does not mean "head of the choir". The head of a choir is certainly a κορυφαῖος, but that is not the meaning of the word κορυφαῖος, which has nothing to do with χορός, "choir", a word that begins with χ (ch), not κ (c). Κορυφαῖος means "head man", "chief", "leader" and is derived from κορυφή, "head", "top". Esoglou (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This article has become very unwieldy and unreadable due to the lengthy "Orthodox Christian arguments against papal supremacy" section. At the pace this is going, we might wish to consider putting the material in that section in a separate article with only a summary of the arguments in this article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard - that's another argument altogether from the one made by Esolgou - but I'm sure he appreciates the back-up Montalban (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard, I understand your need to draw attention away from the deficiencies of your friends argument with a counter-thrust that has no bearing on that discussion at all, but in doing so you've not noticed that I've already removed 2/3 of one section -on Athanasius. Another occasion of you not reading things before responding?

I note he's now changed his argument to one where he's debating not only Orthodox, but now Catholic apologists as to the meaning of a word Montalban (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be vain to hope for concrete discussion on the additions to the bloated section (now 17,953 words out of the 26,162 in the article as a whole, including title etc., i.e., 68.62% of the total), since the editor doing the stuffing prefers to respond with personal remarks instead of trying to justify his insertion of material such as his forum-like attacks on otherwise unmentioned statements in a book that is neither a Church document nor a statement by a Church official. This is just one example of a more extensive main problem. His mistaken statement that "coryphæus means the head of the choir", which with good will would be quickly and easily fixed, is only a by-the-way matter. Esoglou (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Moral high-ground is probably not a place for people who offer nothing but accusations and negative comments

Especially in light of the fact that those rules are applied selectively, and take no account of changes made to the article Montalban (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

In another language

In the article is footnote [3] which says Ireneus, Adversus haereses, III, 3, 2: PG 7848. Wrote Cajetano de Fulgure: "Potentiorem autem principalitatem Romanae Ecclesiae tribuit, non propter Urbis amplitudinem, aut civitatis imperium, sed propterea quod illa principium, basis, ac veluti centrum est Ecclesiasticae unitatis; in qua velut in communi omnium gentium thesauro depositum Apostolicae traditionis conservatur". Cajetano De Fulgore, Institutiones theologicae, tomus I, Neapoli 1827, p. 325.

Is there any rule against citing (without translation) another language in an English language article? Montalban (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No... English-language sources are preferred. Translation of foreign-language sources is desirable but not required. Why not just ask for the translation? My guess is that someone can provide one in short order. I would do it but my high school Latin was never proficient enough to translate that and I've forgotten most of what I knew. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Who do I ask for a translation? Montalban (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I really expected Esoglou to offer a translation by now. However, if he doesn't step up soon, you might try one of the editors listed here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a generic request ("Would someone translate ...") would have got a response from me. And I'm sure there are several people who would have responded. But Montalban may prefer to use the way that Richard has indicated, and thus avoid having the response come from me. The whole section in which the quotation appears, obviously written by someone whose first language is not English, needs radical revision. But with so many other edits being made here, I have been limiting my own interventions. Esoglou (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's against the rules, why do I need to ask people to translate it? Montalban (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't Richard explain clearly enough that it is not against the rules to quote a source in the language in which it is written? Esoglou (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I missed that Montalban (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not against the rules but since this is the English Wiki, it is highly desirable to provide English translations rather than assume that the reader knows the foreign language well enough to translate it themselves. Very short and well-known phrases in a foreign language need no translation but, these days, not many people would even know what "sic transit gloria mundi" or "in hoc signo" mean. These days, about the only Latin that the average American knows is "Semper Fi" and "habeas corpus". Some probably even think that "carpe diem" is the fish of the day. ;-) Sigh.... --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, this is what I got from Google translate:

Powerful, however, gives pre-eminence of the Roman Church, not because of the extent of the city, or city government, but for this cause that the former principle, the basis, as it were, is the center of the Church's unity, in which the deposit of the Apostolic tradition is preserved as a treasure of all nations in general

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

munus petrinum???

Who are the munus petrinum?

The article starts with is the munus petrinum who founded the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff as Successor of the Prince of the Apostles (Primus Apostolus) and Vicar of Christ... Montalban (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course with "who", rather than "which", it's nonsense. Munus petrinum means (Saint) Peter's function or ministry. Only by retranslating it into the language of the editor who wrote it and thus also understanding "founded" as "is the basis for" does it have sense. Esoglou (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you looking into re-writing any of it? I know you seem eager to point out problems with one section. Montalban (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you ask me to rewrite that introduction, since Laurel Lodged has, if I remember right, complained about the present text, and since I think that, even if translated back into the language of the shoe-making town that the editor was working from, the present introduction is confused and confusing, I will do so promptly. Esoglou (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Quoting the Greeks

The article also states a "Classic Roman Catholic tradition..." and cites the Greek Orthodox Church's idea of what Catholics believe. Aside from this incident of 'straw-man' ;-) not being a subject of protest by some editors I find it odd that the Catholic argument isn't found in a Catholic site.

Furthermore that GOARCH site simply itself quotes someone, with a footnote [10] that seems to be a dead link Montalban (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking that this Eastern Orthodox criticism by Fr Emmanuel Clapsis of what he calls the "classic Roman Catholic tradition" be removed? I'm sure some editor will willingly oblige. Esoglou (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. It was an attempt to highlight the selective application of a rule of 'straw-man' Montalban (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your purpose was, you have made even more evident the overwhelmingly POV character of the article. Esoglou (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You lay these charges all the time, but I'm not totally convinced you know their meaning - like the supposed 'straw-man' before.

What is POV is the highly selective nature of laying these accusations, or perhaps I'm being unfair and you didn't notice all these errors in the article BEFORE I added my bit?

I haven't seen you racing to add citations to the first part of the article nor alternatively to demand from the editors who wrote it that that they do so Montalban (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am laying no charges here, just thanking you for confirming that well over two thirds of the article presents Eastern Orthodox viewpoints. Esoglou (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course you are. Currently it is that it's a POV article. You've leveled divers other charges... some incorrectly - such as regarding straw-man argument, and even using such devices as (sic) for no apparent reason

If you could set out why you believe on section is clearly POV, and not another that would be great.

My charge of POV is set out quite clearly in the section (below) where I have raised the question. Esoglou (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

First Council of Constantinople and its context part 2

The article states

The event that is often considered to have been the first conflict between Rome and Constantinople was triggered by the elevation of the see of Constantinople to a position of honour, second only to Rome on the grounds that, as capital of the eastern Roman empire, it was now the "New Rome

This is not the context of that Council. A reaction to Arianism was the context Montalban (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, I've wondered for some time about the "and its context" part of the title. I haven't been able to figure out why it's there. If no one objects, I'd propose getting rid of it.

As for "reaction to Arianism" being the context, I'd say that was the theological context. The ecclesial context consisted of two things: the Meletian schism and the selection of a Nicene bishop of Constantinople to replace the Arian incumbent, Demophilus, who was deposed when he refused to accept the Nicene creed. There is also the ecclesial/political context which is to say that Damasus opposed Gregory because of his Antiochene background; Rome and Alexandria were more tightly bound and opposed Antioch. However, this is more detail than is needed for this article; the details can be found in the article on the First Council of Constantinople.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wetterau, Bruce

There's a refernce as to a history by Wetterau Bruce that has no page number. It's not actually a 'world history' but a dictionary of history

I wonder if anyone has a copy -or knows which part of the article is actually in the dictionary? It could be that there are several entries, such as for Emperor Michael, the council itself, etc. Montalban (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two things,

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

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

You may have forgotten your ignoring the Oriental Orthodox, but please don't forget that the complaint here is not about the presentation of an Eastern Orthodox view but about devoting more than two thirds of the article to your presentation of it. Esoglou (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The problem is not the presentation of the Orthodox POV. That absolutely should be presented here. The problem is the extent and nature of the presentation to the point where it takes on the character of a polemic rather than an encyclopedia article. The solution is NOT to expand the so-called "Catholic" section so as to create a competing polemic. Instead, what we need to do is to trim the article to a more readable length. We should remember that Wikipedia is NOT paper and that we have the option of creating a separate article for the long, detailed discussion of the Orthodox POV while retaining just a summary of the key points here in this article. Wikipedia is also NOT a forum or a battleground. It is not the purpose of this or any other article to present a particular POV with the intent of convincing the reader of the rightness of that POV. We should describe the issue and the key points in dispute and then let the reader avail himself of the many external resources that can discuss those points in detail. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just noticed that this article is the 599th longest in the English Wikipedia, with, I think, only three religion-related articles ahead of it. Esoglou (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Article is unbalanced

No, this comment is not more about how the article is overly weighted towards the Orthodox POV (although it certainly is that). I wanted to point out that there have been debates and disputes about papal primacy even within the Catholic Church and those issues have been given short shrift so that this article focuses almost exclusively on the East-West Schism rather than about the entire topic of primacy. (NB: even the sections other than the "Orthodox Christian arguments against papal primacy" section suffer from this overweighting)

Specifically, I note that there is no mention of Conciliarism or Americanism (heresy). Admittedly, both have been branded as heretical but they nonetheless point to movements within the Catholic Church to assert the power of the bishops relative to the Pope. Similarly, there is only a brief mention of Ultramontanism. A more detailed exposition of that topic would be helpful. Finally, the section on Vatican II relies too much on church jargon and gobbledygook. It doesn't state clearly and simply enough that the issue was that Vatican I was seen as giving the Pope too much power and that Vatican II was an attempt to shift power away from the Pope and to the bishops without denying the ultimate authority of the Pope. There is no mention of the encouragement to the bishops to form national and regional conferences (but NOT councils!). Nor is there any mention of the shift of power back to the Pope under the reigns of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

I don't have time to work on these topics this morning but I wanted to point them out for all to consider.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it was principally through conflicts that advances in the development of the doctrine on papal primacy came about, like advances in the development of other doctrines, whether in Nicaea I, or Ephesus, or Trent, or Vatican I. Only after the advances were made did some views become orthodox and others heretical.

I don't see the relevance of bishops conferences. The meetings of the conferences do not seem to me to be essentially different from the local councils of bishops that have, one could say, always been part of church practice. The Ravenna Document, 24-27 speaks of them as manifestations both of conciliarity and of the existence of a protos (a number one, a primate), a kephale (a head) among them, with which the document sees the position of the bishop of Rome as analogous on a universal level.

For now I feel no urge to remedy the defects that Richard has pointed to. Some are perhaps linked to the idea that papal primacy was delivered to the Church from the beginning in the form in which it is formulated today. In that picture, any contradiction or even any absence of awareness of it at an earlier stage is (wrongly) seen as significant. The same holds for actions and statements that some would wish to interpret as not merely an advance towards but actually as an implicit upholding of the present formulation. Esoglou (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the Oriental Orthodox?

Another editor said

You may have forgotten your ignoring the Oriental Orthodox

Unfortunately, not only is this yet another charge by him of me doing something wrong, I'd already addressed this mistake of his earlier by pointing out that if one puts "Orthodox Church" into Wiki's search, you get directed to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Therefore Wiki's own standard is that where "Orthodox Church" is mentioned it is synonymous with the EOC.

There's actually been a continual barrage of negative criticism of all manner of charges made when they have in fact been mistakes; such as the use of (Sic), what a straw-man is, what part of the article is POV, who actually is interpreting, etc.. This is unfortunately simply a repeat of a mistake. Montalban (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"Too much should not be read into..."

In the "Doctrine as the result of development" section, the text read "In this view, too much should not be read into the First Epistle of Clement...". Someone has distorted this sentence from one that presents a positive assertion of the doctrine to one that minimizes the value of the evidence. While we must recognize the existence of opposing POVs and present them, it is silly and awkward to make the first presentation of an idea be a negative assertion. The more appropriate way to present the diversity of opinion is to say "Some assert A while others minimize the relevance or importance of A." I have rewritten the text to indicate that "some proponents" assert A (First Letter of Clement) and B (epistle of Ignatius to the Romans). However, in my ignorance, I am not able to ground these assertions in secondary sources. (i.e. who exactly points to the First Epistle of Clement or the epistle of Ignatius to the Romans?) Neither am I able to ground the objections to these assertions in secondary sources. (once again, who exactly thinks that these letters are not that significant? what is their argument against their importance?) If other editors could help in finding those secondary sources, the assistance would be much appreciated.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It should have been made clearer (by me) that both the description of the two writings and the warning against reading too much into them came from the same source, Schatz. I have now added a different source (a more effective one?) for the Ignatius expression and rearranged in what I hope is a clearer way. Esoglou (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Reorganizing according to Laurel Lodged's outline

I have moved large sections of the "Orthodox Christian arguments against..." section into Laurel Lodged's outline. I would still like to discuss whether it is better to use Laurel's outline or just meld the objections in line with the "Historical development" section. However, pending a resolution of that question, it seems reasonable to start melding Montalban's prodigious but rather disorganized effort into Laurel's much more concise and systematic outline. So I have been bold and started this task. I did the easy part first which was to move the material related to the early church, the ecumenical councils and the western councils into the outline. The remaining material is not so easy to organize and so I figured I'd initiate a discussion here first before proceeding much further. I'd like to hear what other editors think about Laurel's outline and how best to fit Montalban's text into it.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Proper use of secondary sources

Well, I've already written a couple rather lengthy expositions on the rationale for using secondary sources rather than primary sources and the second time that I did so, I was criticized for being pedantic so I won't repeat what has already been said a couple of different times. I will simply point out that much of Montalban's text remains couched as assertions of fact rather than presentations of opinions (POVs). Moreover, the sources provided are often primary sources or, when secondary sources are provided, the article text is still couched as an assertion of fact rather than the opinion of the secondary source. Without access to the actual text of the secondary source, I am not able to reword the article text into the voice of the source and thus we wind up with Wikipedia making the assertion rather than simply reporting that the source made the assertion.

I did make a bold leap and made this edit which assumes that the original sentence accurately presents Srawley's position. It would be better if the editor who has actually seen the source would make the appropriate edits to the article text so as to put the opinions into the voice of the source.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Srawley is a good source. He notes "The individual churches represent locally the universal Church. As Jesus Christ is the Head of the universal Church, so is the bishop the head of the local Church." (page 34, Vol. 1)

Why do you not think that the first section is POV? It presents the Catholic view - the development of Primacy. Furthermore, I thought your beef was the use of Primary Sources (alone). If another writer uses a primary source then why can't it be used in the article?

Whelton might say "Augustine argues in xxx that yyy (position) is maintained" and then quote him to show it. I had originally written something to the effect that many Church Fathers accepted the keys have been given to other Apostles.

Laurel re-worded it as Such an interpretation, it is claimed,[61] has been accepted by many Church Fathers

And then I added the source.

It seems to me at least that she was happy to have someone else making the claim. You wanted the source, and I added that. Now you don't like the sources being used????

I'm assuming that you're the editor of these, but sentences now run together such as At the Sixth Ecumenical Council Pope HonoriusandPatriarch Sergius were declared heretics and the heading Fifth Ecumenical Council= now appears, with the '=' sign

Montalban (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the missing spaces are caused by a malfunction in the way Windows copy-paste interacts with Google Chrome and the WikiEditor. Please fix any artifacts that you find.

Without quotations, I am unable to evaluate Srawley or Whelton. However, I am willing to assume good faith and believe that, if you say that they assert something, then that is what they asserted. Where I run into trouble is where text asserts something and then cites a secondary source. Without a quote, I cannot blithely write "According to secondary source A, Y is true." because I don't know if that is what source A actually wrote. So, I must wait for you to make these changes.

If you can point out places in the so-called "Catholic section" which present opinion as fact, I will be glad to attempt a fix. Unfortunately, such fixes are better made by someone who has access to the secondary sources and I do not have such access.

The kinds of problems that I see include:

• "It can be argued that some western councils have also disregarded papal authority." - Who makes this argument? Without a secondary source, it is the Wikipedia author(s) who are making the argument. That would be inappropriate.
• "There is no reference to another tier above bishop. For Ignatius, the bishop is supreme, not the bishop because he is in communion with the bishop in Rome" (followed by 5 citations to Ignatius' writings - primary sources). Thus, the text as written reads as if it is the Wikipedia author(s) interpretation of Ignatius. That is inappropriate. We need to find a secondary source who asserts those points.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I just spoke of one who says that for Ignatius each church is headed by a bishop under Jesus (I quoted Srawley)

The other statement re: western councils is fair and I will look up my sources Montalban (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The quotation from Srawley that Montalban cites at the beginning of his first intervention in this section is in agreement with what the Roman Catholic Church itself teaches (Lumen gentium, 26-27). One of the statements that are part of Roman Catholic teaching that he cites as if they were objectively (instead of being so only in hostile minds) opposed the Roman Catholic teaching. Esoglou (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My point about secondary sources cuts both ways. If something is Roman Catholic teaching, it should be presented as such and sourced to a secondary source that establishes that it is such. Whether a Church Father is a secondary source or not depends on whether or not a syllogism is being built up. In general, I think we are better off with saying "Source A (such as Whelton or Srawley) make argument P citing Church Fathers X and Y and Church Council document Z." Done that way, there is no chance of someone saying "that's just some random Wikipedia editor's opinion." Unlike academic papers that value original thinking and the ability to synthesize, Wikipedia discourages such activity. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Emperors of Constantinople

The line in the article The general reaction of the see of Rome to the activities of the emperors of Constantinople in church matters and to the advancement of the bishop of the new capital, led the popes to define their ecclesial position more sharply is wholly inaccurate as there are no "Emperors of Constantinople". At best one can say that they were Emperors in Constantinople Montalban (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I reworded this sentence which I suspect was a "camel" (i.e. a horse designed by committee). Does my rewrite address your concerns? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mass edits

Well Pseudo-Richard, by moving stuff from an "Orthodox" section you've now allowed another editor (banned from editing Orthodox stuff) open season on editing material that I had placed there.

You two should be congratulated for butchering the article.

The other editor can now 'contextualise' everything to the Catholic POV

Montalban (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a battleground. This article should be an NPOV presentation of the issues surrounding the doctrine. That does not mean that it MUST be structured with a "Catholic" section AND an "Orthodox" section. Esoglou's editing restriction prohibits him from editing text regarding Orthodox doctrine and perspectives. As I understand it, it does not restrict him from correcting factual errors. Looking at his most recent edits, I am not convinced that he has violated the spirit of the restrictions. I have not consulted the specific wording to see if he has violated the letter of the restrictions. I would prefer not to have to get involved in Wikilawyering. See my response to Taiwan boi in the section "Yet another religious war" below. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to say it's clear there has been a Catholic tag team going on. Why is Esoglou editing Orthodox commentary when he shouldn't be doing any such thing? And where's the explanation for these mass edits? --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Esoglou, see my response in the section "Yet another religious war" below. I am not clear what you are referring to as "mass edits". Could you clarify what you mean? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Montalban, by "contextualize" did you mean "make the text represent the sources objectively instead of POV-wise"? "Synods were convened and letters were exchanged, but in the end, having over-stepped his mark Pope Victor was rebuked and had to back down" is obviously not an objective rendering of "Bishop Victor of Rome ordered synods to be held to settle the matter – an interesting early instance of synodality and indeed of popes encouraging synods – and excommunicated Polycrates of Ephesus and the bishops of Asia when their synod refused to adopt the Roman line. Victor was rebuked by Irenaeus for this severity and it seems that he revoked his sentence and that communion was preserved." This was the source you cited for your statement. By later removing the citation, you left your statement unsourced and liable to be deleted. (By the way, I prefer not to step on the tail of Taiwan boi's coat.) Esoglou (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet another religious war

Once again we have an issue on a contentious subject which is being warred over by promoters of opposing theologies, resulting in a massively over large and complicated article which is nothing more than a battleground of edits. This is a mockery of what editing a Wikipedia article is supposed to be. This is the latest in a trail of articles which have been wrecked in this way, by the same parties.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please... save your polemical rhetoric for 2012 election campaign. It is NOT the same parties exactly and your suggestion that it is only serves as inflammatory rhetoric rather than useful insight.

Your suggestion that it is "the same parties" lumps me in the same category with Esoglou and, as much as I like and respect Esoglou, I deeply resent the insinuation that our editing objectives and style are similar. Ask Montalban if my editing has improved his text or not.

Furthermore, your suggestion also can be interpreted to suggest that Montalban is a LoveMonkey clone. And he should object to such insinuations as well. As much as I found Montalban to be prickly and partisan at first, he has shown to be a much more reasonable and collegial editor than LoveMonkey and, with the exception of occasional partisan outbursts, he seems to be willing to help correct the many issues with his original contributions.

We are making exceedingly slow but steady progress and your jumping in with partisan sniping is not helping. Why not pick up a a hammer and help build this thing?

As for the complaint that this article has become a "battleground of edits", I would comment that it is Montalban who has come in with an Orthodox "chip on his shoulder" and attempted to turn this article into a battleground by characterizing what is supposed to be an NPOV narration of the history of the doctrine as the "Catholic" section. Rather than attempt to fix any NPOV issues in the article, he chose to insert an unwieldy and unreadable "Orthodox" section that is a disorderly jumble of polemic and which more than counterbalances any Catholic POV that was in the original article. Now, he thinks we should expand the "Catholic:" section rather than reduce the "Orthodox" section ignoring the constraints of WP:SIZE. The interest seems to be more in creating two soapboxes, one for each side rather than providing a single, integrated and concise summary of the two sides.

Even taking into account allegations that doing so opens up the opportunity for Esoglou to edit where he should not, I am still considering that the possibility that the best hope for this article is to consider melding in the objections with the main flow of the article rather than having a separate objections section (per [WP:CRITICISM]]).

I do not believe that we should have a separate section for "Orthodox objections" because that leaves us with the task of explaining where Orthodox objections are similar to and where they are different from Anglican objections and Protestant objections. If this leads to separate sections for the Anglicans and Protestants, the article will go from being merely awful to horrendous.

If Esoglou's editing presents an obstacle to writing a good article, then we should address that issue directly rather than force ourselves into unnatural and suboptimal article structures in order to create fences over which Esoglou should not cross.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Structure of the article

Allegations of "butchering the article" notwithstanding, I think we need to recognize that the "Orthodox objections" section as originally written was a "brain dump" of everything that Montalban could come up with to attack the doctrine of papal primacy. As I've said several times before, it is important to present the Orthodox POV but Wikipedia is not a place for polemics or religious tracts. Laurel Lodged came up with what I thought was a comprehensive outline of the objections in Montalban's section. However, when I tried to use that outline to organize the text in the "Orthodox objections" section, there were a bunch of sections for which it was not immediately obvious where in the outline they belonged. Laurel seems to have run into the same problem as evidenced by the edit summary for this edit. Instead of sniping at each other with charges of partisanry, we should be looking at these organizational problems and proposing ways to address them. The sections "Opposition arguments from early church history" and "Opposition arguments from Church Councils" are reasonably well structured. The section "Opposition arguments from Orthodox doctrine" is still a jumble. The question before us is: "Does it have to be?". Is it really just a catch-all for a bunch of miscellaneous but unrelated arguments? My hope was that we could look at this remaining jumble and tease out one or more unifying themes that would tie together groups of ideas for the reader. Any thoughts on what these unifying themes might be? My first idea was that "early Church history" and "Church fathers" are not exactly the same thing and that we could put John Chrystostom, Basil the Great and Maximus the Confessor under a section titled "Church fathers". Then we would have to ask where Ignatius goes (i.e. with "early Church history" or "Church fathers"). I confess that I don't know enough to know if Basil the Great and Maximus the Confessor are considered Church fathers; if they are not, then we will have to find a different section title.

I'm very open to ideas that will help improve the article structure and I readily concede that my knowledge is scant and inadequate to the task. However, I strongly object to the suggestion that there should be a section which serves as an "Orthodox sandbox" in which Montalban can write whatever he pleases in whatever order he pleases. I would object to this even in principle but specifically I think that Montalban is not up to the task of writing a well-organized and concise summary of the Orthodox view. He needs help and I think we should all work collegially to figure out how to tame this beast. (By "beast", I mean the large mass of points that Montalban has inserted, NOT Montalban himself.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Church fathers

(text repeated from my comment above) I'm thinking that "early Church history" and "Church fathers" are not exactly the same thing and that we could put John Chrystostom, Basil the Great and Maximus the Confessor under a section titled "Church fathers". Then we would have to ask where Ignatius goes (i.e. with "early Church history" or "Church fathers"). I confess that I don't know enough to know if Basil the Great and Maximus the Confessor are considered Church fathers; if they are not, then we will have to find a different section title. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Tome of Leo

In the "Historical development of the doctrine" section, there is an anemic subsection titled "Leo I". Then in the "Objections from Orthodox doctrine" section, there is another section titled "Tome of Leo". It seems reasonable to ask why these two sections could not be merged. The immediate objection is that the "Leo I" section is a fairly NPOV description of what happened. It simply states what Leo I did without passing judgment on whether that was an appropriate and justifiable action or not. (despite claims that this is somehow the "Catholic" section, much of the "Historical development of the doctrine" section consists of fairly NPOV text.) As for the "Tome of Leo" section, it is part of a POV section that is intended to present the objections to the doctrine. I understand that melding it into the "Historical development of the doctrine" section takes away from the impact of the "Objections" section and would require that the entire objections section be melded into "Historical development of the doctrine" section to the extent possible. I'm not sure if that makes sense or not so I figured I'd present the issue for discussion here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)