Jump to content

Talk:Papal primacy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 333: Line 333:
*2 - Regarding Doeswyck: The World Cat article you cite characterizes it as "controversial literature." Do I really have to say anything at this point?
*2 - Regarding Doeswyck: The World Cat article you cite characterizes it as "controversial literature." Do I really have to say anything at this point?


The entire section violates 1) NPOV. 2) Has 2 inadmissable sources, at least. 3) Violates [[WP:SYNTH]], by linking a 19th century collection of Church fathers and then arguing that their quotes are objections. [[Special:Contributions/70.24.86.150|70.24.86.150]] ([[User talk:70.24.86.150|talk]]) 21:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The entire section violates 1) NPOV. 2) Has 2 inadmissable sources, at least. 3) Violates [[WP:SYNTH]], by linking a 19th century collection of Church fathers and then arguing that their quotes are objections used today. [[Special:Contributions/70.24.86.150|70.24.86.150]] ([[User talk:70.24.86.150|talk]]) 21:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:26, 15 June 2022


What a mess

From looking at this articles history and reading some diffs, I see why the article is so jumbled and not just about a primacy of jurisdiction in an economy of salvation. It looks like should be harmonized with some related articles (maybe primacy of Simon Peter and historical development of the doctrine of papal primacy which was a split from this article).

The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome#Opposition to the doctrine section is just an unreferenced list that does not differentiate how the Churches changed between the Apostolic Age, the pre-ecumenical Ante-Nicene Period, the First Council of Nicaea convened by Constantine I, the First Council of Constantinople canon 3, the Council of Chalcedon canon 28, and all the various ecumenical councils that some groups reject. It seems to ignore how jurisdiction was influenced by a civil understanding after it became the State church of the Roman Empire (which was the Catholic Church until the East–West Schism); or how diocese were organized along the lines of territory of civil Roman diocese; Justinian I's imposition of a five patriarchal see Pentarchy structure; 7th century Muslim conquests of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; 10th century (post schism) autocephalous Bulgarian Patriarchate, etc., created/recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The article's history page probably contains a treasure trove of good content to mine. The existing references need to be checked and improved. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philorthodox.blogspot.com

I believe philorthodox.blogspot.com is WP:SELFPUBLISHed. But does it represent the Anglican Province of America since the post is by one of its bishops? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euclidpress is self published

I believe Euclidpress is WP:SELFPUBLISHed. See www.lulu.com/spotlight/euclidpress which is found on Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business. I marked the content this edit with {{Self-published inline}} and references with {{Self-published source}}.

I marked the other articles where this work, His broken body, is found with {{Self-published source}}: Apostolic succession, Christianity in the 3rd century, Christianity in the 5th century, Clerical celibacy, East–West Schism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque, Exsurge Domine, Filioque, History of Eastern Orthodox Christian theology, History of the East–West Schism, History of the Filioque controversy, Mass of Paul VI, Original sin, Papal infallibility, Primacy of Simon Peter, Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Quartodecimanism. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC) modified 23:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the Google books preview of His broken body. I feel the book has a charitable presentation but interprets some Catholic understanding in, I guess, an unconventional way.

It included a fringe theory, in "The catholic Church as a hologram" section which both shows the cover of Michael Talbot's The Holographic Universe and quotes from an article (or a version of it) by Talbot. That part is, in my opinion, just a variety of pseudo-scientific speculative quantum woo that skeptics mock. Cleenewerck writes: "This brief scientific excursus has only one point: to convince the reader that it is not preposterous to think of the catholic Church as a hologram" (p. 66). Talbot got the science of a hologram wrong (in reality, a physical fragment of a recording medium does not contain all the information of that entire hologram) and unfortunately Cleenewerck developed his analogy idea on that. Regardless of the misunderstood science, I think it is reasonable to believe that only a few people "think of the catholic Church as a hologram".

This this 2012 edit added content from Cleenewerck that included "One could therefore argue that the Great schism started with Victor, continued with Stephen and remained underground until the ninth century" (p. 156). The post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy that the East–West Schism (commonly dated to 1054) "started with" Pope Victor I (c. 190s), i.e. about 860 years earlier, is also a fringe theory.

I think the Quartodecimanism content citing Cleenewerck should be removed from this and other articles. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine's Tractate 124

Augustine's Tractate 124 (about John 21:19-25) is not quoted in Guettée. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02varvara.wordpress.com

I believe 02varvara.wordpress.com is WP:SELFPUBLISHed and I can't find even a name or information about who writes it. The blog is the source of a translated quote used in the article. I replaced the {{Citation needed}} with a reference to the blog, {{Self-published source}}, and {{tertiary}}. I think the quote needs a reliable translation since the Russian is from the Interfax news agency. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some English language news reports from the Russian Orthodox Church about the subject:
  • "Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk: allegations about a 'breakthrough' in Orthodox-Catholic dialogue are untrue". mospat.ru. Moscow: Russian Orthodox Church. Department for External Church Relations. 2010-09-27. Archived from the original on 2010-10-07. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • "Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk: 'It is impossible to speak of "the recognition of the sacraments" administered by schismatics' ". mospat.ru. Moscow: Russian Orthodox Church. Department for External Church Relations. 2010-10-06. Archived from the original on 2010-10-10. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • "Metropolitan Hilarion attends a meeting of the Joint Theological Commission for Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue's drafting committee". mospat.ru. Moscow: Russian Orthodox Church. Department for External Church Relations. 2011-06-17. Archived from the original on 2011-06-23. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • "Metropolitan Hilarion addresses Orthodox participants in 13th session of Joint Commission for Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue". mospat.ru. Moscow: Russian Orthodox Church. Department for External Church Relations. 2014-09-16. Archived from the original on 2015-03-31. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • "13 plenary session of Orthodox-Catholic Theological Dialogue completes its work". mospat.ru. Moscow: Russian Orthodox Church. Department for External Church Relations. 2014-09-23. Archived from the original on 2014-09-25. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
A better set of choices may be:
—BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petitions as a source

I changed a citation that pointed to a reprint of a petition on dici.org to point to the source petition circulated on remnantnewspaper.com. While I don't doubt that the petition, which contains many citations, represents remnantnewspaper.com's and the other signatories "reservations concerning this beatification", I don't think it is about the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome but about "reducing beatification and even canonization to the level of a token of popular esteem bestowed upon a beloved figure in the Church".

The site churchauthority.org is a microsite of "Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research" (wijngaardsinstitute.com / wijngaardsinstitute.org). That organization also operates mysteryandbeyond.org, natural-law-and-conscience.org, thebodyissacred.org, womendeacons.org, womenpriests.org. Donations for that site are made to "Housetop Care Ltd" in Rickmansworth, England (housetopcare.org). I think the content is just agenda driven advocacy whose source is abstracted through several layers of virtual organizations. Blogs describe this petition "issue same tedious demands they have been issuing since 1968" and commenters, outside of what looks to me like a walled garden of blogs, say, for example, that "the named theologians are those that could be described as the usual suspects" and in contrast that "notable feature ... is the stature and impressive credentials of the signatories". Is Catholic Scholars' Declaration on Authority in the Church any different WP:ABOUTSELF than other online petitions of advocacy groups? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitans prior to 325

From reading De Lucia, Pierluigi (2010). The Petrine ministry at the time of the first four ecumenical councils: relations between the Bishop of Rome and the Eastern Bishops as revealed in the canons, process, and reception of the councils (STL). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. Retrieved 2015-05-26. {{cite thesis}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Among such councils the synod of Rome had a unique place, meeting under the guidance of the bishop of Rome, who was the single metropolitan of Italia suburbicaria (central and southern Italy, Sicily, Sardinia). That synod dealt not only with questions of the bishops of this territory, but intentionally discussed and made decisions that were regarded as binding for other churches outside its own metropolitan sphere.(De Lucia p. 6)

The office of metropolitan was not created at the First Council of Nicaea. De Lucia discusses canon 6 promulgated by that council on pages 21 26. He also discusses L'Huillier there. That council was "a foundation to arrangements of ecclesiastical administration and jurisdiction" (De Lucia p. 22). And it is "the canon to which Ratzinger refers when he states: 'The word primates appears for the first time related with the function of the Roman See at the Council of Nicaea in canon 6' " (De Lucia p. 24). "In regard to the authority of the canons," De Lucia explains, "there are differences in scholarly opinion about their intended authority and their effectiveness" (De Lucia p. 25). —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked Crete draft of working document

This 2011 edit added content about a 2008 unofficial draft text on "The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium" topic prepared by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was leaked in 2010. Have the quotes and other content, cited from the leaked unofficial draft, been updated in later sessions? Is the content outmoded? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolicus at 1049 Council of Reims

Relevant discussion at→ Talk:Council of Reims#Apostolicus

This 2010 edit added content about the Latin quote "quod solus Romanae sedis pontifex universalis ecclesiae primas esset et Apostolicus". A discussion about translating this Latin quote is found above at Talk:Papal primacy/Archive 5#Please translate from Latin. See discussion at Talk:Council of Reims for interpretation in English language sources. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The keys sources

This 2011 content based looks like it is based on primary religious source:

Orthodox accept that Peter had a certain primacy in the Bible. He is first to be given the keys Matthew 16:18. However it is implied that the other Apostles also received the keys. Matthew 18:18

This interpretation is accepted by many Church Fathers

was edited into on 2011-08-28

Orthodox Christians accept that Peter had a certain primacy'. In the New Testament, he is first to be given the keys Matthew 16:18. However other texts may be interpreted to imply that the other Apostles also received the keys Matthew 18:18. Such an interpretation, it is claimed, has been accepted by many Church Fathers.

The shift was from "it is implied" into "other texts may be interpreted to imply" and did not add any secondary source. A book source was added on 2011-10-08 and a URL was added on 2011-10-08.

Problems with this citation are that the URL does not mention the book and the URL looks like WP:SELFPUB. The book publishers site shows the book has a chapter titled "The Papacy and the 'Rock' of Matthew 16", but that title is not identical to "The Church Fathers' interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18" which is the web page title. There is no Google Book preview to verify the book content. The web page has a good range of long quotes with reasonable citations but also does not correctly describe the authors of its cited sources, for example, Ignaz von Döllinger "taught Church history as a Roman Catholic for 47 years in the 19th century and was one of the greatest and most influential historians in the Church of his day. He sums up the Eastern and Western understanding of Matthew 16 in the patristic period"; but no mention that he was excommunicated by the Catholic Church for heresy. I improved both citations in the existing <ref> until someone is able to see what the book includes. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpting the term catholic

This edit changed "the original meaning of catholic" into "the original meaning of the word catholic- καθολικισμός, katholikismos, 'according to the whole' ". καθολικισμός is not translated into catholic. καθολικός is probably a better term – but the ancient Greek term doesn't add anything because the modern usage of term catholic, regardless of which language is used, has more than one definition sense (e.g. see dictionary.com). Arguments in the article about the term catholic are sculpting meaning instead of describing how the term catholic is historically used by various groups. I think some etymological fallacy might be in the article. Examples, in my opinion, of this kind of sculpting are: "Contrary to popular opinion, the word catholic does not mean 'universal'; it means 'whole, complete, lacking nothing' " and "the original meaning of the word catholic- καθολικισμός, katholikismos, 'according to the whole' ". The article maybe should have a short section about the relevant historical and modern senses of the term catholic to explain the terms usage by different groups and link to History of the term "Catholic" and Roman Catholic (term). —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring definition section

According to Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome/Archive 2#Definition??, the article gave "no definition of its subject matter" in 2010. I added a new "Primacy of the Bishop of Rome#Dogma within Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches" section to define what the "subject matter" within the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches is. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence about Tertullian Poitiers Chrysostom Augustine is synthesis

Primacy of the Bishop of Rome § Opposition to the doctrine (this revision):

However, in Matthew 16:18 the keys were given not only to Peter but to all the Apostles equally. Such an interpretation, it is claimed,[107] has been accepted by many Church Fathers; Tertullian,[h] Hilary of Poitiers,[i] John Chrysostom,[j] Augustine.[111][k][113][114][l]

the quotes were added in 2011 as part of, what looks to me like, a small WP:QUOTEFARM – without attributing who synthesized that "this interpretation is accepted by many Church Fathers" about these quotes. The Webster citation was added later in 2011.

This synthesis seem to be contradicted in several public domain sources that I skimmed. For example this entire chapter which concludes with a list that synthesized each of these four as "concurrent testimony of [...] prelates and doctors from the East and the West from every quarter of Christendom at the time all establishing the historical fact of the primacy of Peter and his successors and the Catholic belief therein existing in those early ages."

I think Webster is mis-cited. Based on the above attributable links, I think the sentence and quotes should be removed. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had the time to be thorough and review Webster fully, but a deep scan reveals that he quotes not only the early fathers, but a series of modern-day scholars, some of whom arrive at their own syntheses about the early fathers' position on primacy. Webster's own conclusion seems to match those syntheses, not diverging into some private theory. The synthesis does not match the RC doctrine, and says in what ways it differs. I think the problem is that this source is currently misrepresented in the article, another inexact and somewhat off-target rewording by some editor. I think some proper sentence belongs here, as do the sources, but some sort of editing is required. Evensteven (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Evensteven: the page number ("pp43ff") cited from Webster was deleted. Adding the citation to the phrase "it is claimed" turns it into a connector that doesn't cite the content on either side of that cited phrase: "it is claimed". The Church fathers wrote generally one way on the subject of primacy. But sometimes they changed over time about what they thought – a scholars synthesis will change depending on the selection of Church fathers and their quotes included in a synthesis.
Nevertheless, I should have made it clear that the synthesis is also using quotes added in 2011 about Matthew 18:18 and not Matthew 16:18 – the quotes of the Church fathers are not about primacy but about keys of Heaven. It is not the same concept. Keeping the sentence is misleading. The Webster citation, as you said, "is currently misrepresented in the article". —BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that keeping the current sentence is misleading; it needs correction. But I think 'keys of Heaven' and 'primacy' are both related to the Orthodox opposition to the RC doctrine, which is what the section is about. There is also a lot of consideration of 'on this rock', which is where 'keys of Heaven' enter in. Is it not true that the doctrine (or its RC defense) argues that both of those indicate a primacy of the bishop of Rome over other bishops, a primacy that focusses governance of the Church into one person through the apostolic succession from Peter, to whom the keys were given? That's the base issue that the sentence (or any text supported by the source) needs to cover in a manner appropriate to what the source says. And that's why I think removal is not the proper response. Evensteven (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ware cherry picked

Primacy of the Bishop of Rome § Orthodox view (this revision):

The Orthodox church considers the Bishop of Rome to be the primus inter pares.

It cites Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church. Unfortunately, it includes incomplete evidence (fallacy) about what Ware wrote in his book. For example, he wrote:

The Orthodox Church does not accept the doctrine of Papal authority set forth in the decrees of the Vatican Council of 1870, and taught today in the Roman Catholic Church; but at the same time Orthodoxy does not deny to the Holy and Apostolic See of Rome a primacy of honor, together with the right (under certain conditions) to hear appeals from all parts of Christendom.

Ware also wrote a nuanced explanation about the papal universal role as the appeal court petitioned by bishops about judicial decisions of episcopal tribunals:

[...] Byzantines for their part were willing to allow appeals to Rome, but only under the specific conditions laid down in Canon III of the Council of Sardica (343). This Canon states that a bishop, if under sentence of condemnation, can appeal to Rome, and the Pope, if he sees cause, can order a retrial; this retrial, however, is not to be conducted by the Pope himself at Rome, but by the bishops of the provinces adjacent to that of the condemned bishop. Nicholas, so the Byzantines felt, in reversing the decisions of his legates and demanding a retrial at Rome itself, was going far beyond the terms of this Canon. They regarded his behavior as an unwarrantable and uncanonical interference in the affairs of another Patriarchate.

Looking through the concordance of Ware's Orthodox Church for primacy and for supremacy, shows, for example, that:

Thus far Rome and Orthodoxy agree — but where Rome thinks in terms of the supremacy and the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, Orthodoxy thinks in terms of the college of bishops and of the Ecumenical Council; where Rome stresses Papal infallibility, Orthodox stress the infallibility of the Church as a whole. Doubtless neither side is entirely fair to the other, but to Orthodox it often seems that Rome envisages the Church too much in terms of earthly power and organization, while to Roman Catholics it often seems that the more spiritual and mystical doctrine of the Church held by Orthodoxy is vague, incoherent, and incomplete. Orthodox would answer that they do not neglect the earthly organization of the Church, but have many strict and minute rules, as anyone who reads the Canons can quickly discover.

I would like to find an online English language copy of this to add citations to the actual canonical works. Ware wrote

Hitherto Orthodox theologians, in the heat of controversy, have too often been content simply to attack the Roman doctrine of the Papacy (as they understand it), without attempting to go deeper and to state in positive language what the true nature of Papal primacy is from the Orthodox viewpoint. If Orthodox were to think and speak more in constructive and less in negative and polemical terms, then the divergence between the two sides might no longer appear so absolute.

But this at least shows that the polemics in this article should be replaced with factual content. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last quote here is clearly an opinion that Ware aired, not an Orthodox position, and it's one that's been received in a variety of ways, some of them distinctly negative, some mild, some gentle, but it is rarely embraced fully. I think he sees value in real discussion, and would like for it to happen, implying it has not been entirely successful to date (at the time of writing). Not many people are really in a position to say if that last is so, certainly not me. I'm just not sure what value one bishop's opinion about this is going to be in the article. I favor real discussion also, all over the place, including between the leadership of the churches. But that doesn't really advance anyone's understanding about primacy itself. It's the discussions that might do something. Once held, we'd have something to include and report on. But if you're looking to use the canons as source, it will be tricky to handle. The rules may be written out, but it's the bishops who interpret them, as that is part of their duties in administration of the church, and canon law is notoriously Byzantine. We'll need secondary sources to make sense of them, and if they're not bishops, then it's a question how reliable their findings might be. Evensteven (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Evensteven: of course "canon law is notoriously Byzantine" and yet it is used today. The canons are more authoritative; the theologians are less authoritative. Bishops are each a teaching authority in Orthodoxy and his opinion matters. Ware is also a teaching authority and writes "to go deeper and to state in positive language what the true nature of Papal primacy is from the Orthodox viewpoint". This article and the Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy do not answer the basic question "in positive language what the true nature of Papal primacy is from the Orthodox viewpoint".
I assume for a start, there are commentaries added to the OrthodoxWiki:The Rudder; I assume there are also other English language commentaries. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BoBoMisiu: indeed those are good points. But the canons also require interpretation. For example, there are many canons set down by the First Council of Nicaea governing matters of church discipline, but not all are applied directly in practice today. Yet I believe that they are held to be part of Holy Tradition, and immutable. The teaching interpretation I have heard is that they are accepted as the governance of the time, not directly to be the governance of the present also; for while things pertaining to God do not change (which is most of what Holy Tradition is about), yet the Church lives on earth also and is subject to the countless changes, shifts, and reapplications to times and cultures and individual cases, a task for bishops. And finding a reliable interpretation for quoting in WP will be difficult, for the bishops tend not to draw up policies based on canon law, but simply rule upon individual cases, and even a ruling that is "current" may be based in part on the culture or condition of an individual, and who can weigh how a bishop came to a decision, and how it applies generally? The means for "authoritative" general interpretations are not available.
Also, I agree that this article and the other do not answer the basic question "in positive language what the true nature of Papal primacy is from the Orthodox viewpoint". And I agree that Ware's opinion matters, since he is a teaching authority, but I was trying to say that as a teaching authority he is telling us that no such deep Orthodox viewpoint has yet been formulated, and that current formulations have shortcomings. The article can relay that opinion, perhaps, but it cannot address a need to answer the question better. We can explore "what there is". I am only saying that "what there is" will probably prove to be more useful to the article than Ware's opinion itself. Evensteven (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Evensteven: yes, "canons also require interpretation" that is why I mentioned commentaries about the canons. I agree with your example:
  • "many canons set down by the First Council of Nicaea governing matters of church discipline"
  • "held to be part of Holy Tradition, and immutable"
  • "are accepted as the governance of the time"
  • "not all are applied directly in practice today"
It might be a good start of a contemporary Orthodox doctrine section about primacy or maybe a more general article like canon law with a link, maybe clarifying when and why the canons stopped being applied. Maybe there are sources for that related to economy or dispensation.
  • "finding a reliable interpretation for quoting in WP will be difficult, for the bishops tend not to draw up policies based on canon law, but simply rule upon individual cases"
I think you are describing two different related concepts, like you said "the Church [...] is subject to [...] changes, [...] a task for bishops":
  1. what the canons are – legislated (later amended or revoked through other canons)
  2. how those canons are applied – interpreted and executed
Particular cases do not matter, what the canons are should be included in the article, and possibly how those canons are applied. I added that kind of content into Primacy of the Bishop of Rome § Dogma within Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches.
  • "means for 'authoritative' general interpretations are not available"
Why? For example, The Rudder (1957) is available online (Archive index at the Wayback Machine, a very large and slow download that is searchable) and I see it includes commentary. A Google search shows there are also newer commentaries and histories on Orthodox canon law published.
  • Ware "is telling us that no such deep Orthodox viewpoint has yet been formulated, and that current formulations have shortcomings"
I interpreted Ware the same way. Nevertheless, there are Orthodox "current formulations"
  • The article "cannot address a need to answer the question better"
Why not? Ware's book is a late 20th century reliable source that does address that facet of this subject. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BoBoMisiu: re point 1, "canons require interpretation": If we can find an RS that says when and why they stopped being applied, then we surely can include that. And it's quite possible that that would be viewed as economy or dispensation. Yet, given that the canons are immutable, they are still "on the books", and in principle there would be nothing to prevent the bishops from beginning to apply them again if they considered the circumstance to be proper. The canons do represent a standard, even if it is a standard from a different age, and even if not applied directly now, that standard can be used to weigh what might be proper now. So there is also the matter of influence of the canons upon the present day. Perhaps a commentary would shed some light on that also.
— Evensteven 17:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
I agree about commentaries. (I used the {{interrupted}} to start splitting the developing themes, feel free to rearrange my comments) —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re point 2, "individual cases": You're correct in distinguishing the two things, and yes the individual cases do not matter to the article, which I think was my essential point too. I wouldn't object on principle to including the canons in the article, but if so, I think it will require supporting material so that the reader does not draw the wrong conclusions about application. That will begin to develop into a small treatise on canon law, so care will need to be taken also that this related topic does not unbalance the article.
— Evensteven 17:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
What kind of "supporting material so that the reader does not draw the wrong conclusions about application"? Readers will draw their own conclusions about the choice of economy over canons. I think honesty is better than propaganda. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda? I don't think it's propaganda to help the reader understand how the canons are applied in practice. What's dishonest about that? And if they can understand that, perhaps they will also realize that they're just not in a position to draw conclusions about "economy over canons". That's simply not how it works. People can have all sorts of opinions, but why should anyone think that all his opinions count for anything? Evensteven (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re point 3, "authoritative general interpretations": I suppose I'm mincing words a bit wrt "authoritative". Yes, there is general material on canon law, and one can call some of it "reliable" in the WP sense, but I would not call it "authoritative" unless it came from bishops, since they are the actual authority that applies the canons. I think this word "authoritative" is often misused in English when the intended meaning really is "reliable or "authentic" or "scholarly", or giving some such sense of solidity, confirmation, and dependability. Authoritative really means that the information or view comes directly from the point of origin, the one place that generates it.
— Evensteven 17:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
Writing about 1000–1600 year span of history will naturally show development of doctrines. Now will be different than the past in some ways. You mean authoritative as WP:PRIMARY sources? I mean that The Rudder is authoritative and reliable – I think the synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate authorized it and Nicodemus the Hagiorite was one of the authors. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some kinds of primary sources, or something like the Rudder; it needs to be generative. But a scholarly opinion is not really "authoritative" even when it's reliable, scrupulously researched, and solidly drawn; that's a derivative activity. But please don't think that I intend to diminish scholarship for that reason - it's just in a different category. Evensteven (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re points 4 and 5, "current formulations": Indeed there are some. If Ware's opinion has any place in the article at all, it is to say precisely that "there they are" and "they could be better". Ware, however, is not capable all of himself to provide a better "Orthodox" formulation. At best, he could only formulate one from within Orthodoxy. The difference lies in how deep acceptance is within the Church as a whole, something we could not ascertain simply from his statement. But, at least in that source, I don't think he makes any such statement anyway. The observation that there could be better is all we seem to have here, and I regard that as fairly weak material for the article. Mostly, we'd do much better to stick with something official or based on a synod or a high-level meeting with the RC church. That would give much more weight as to Orthodoxy in full. Nevertheless, we use reliable "formulations from within Orthodoxy" all the time, and there is no rejecting them solely on that basis. Evensteven (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ware's book is a standard introduction about Orthodoxy, from what I skimmed he is nor reformulating anything. I disagree that his book is weak, it is cited in Google Scholar 731 times. I think that content from the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church should be a good start. I don't see anything wrong with Orthodox sources. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness! I don't understand how it is that we are misconnecting! I never intended to imply his book is weak! Fundamentally, it's straight-out Orthodox teaching designed as introduction. The one opinion we've been talking about is an exception to that rule, and it's weaker only because it's from one Orthodox teacher alone, rather than a synthesis of Orthodox teaching in general. Note: "weaker", not "weak". And I just don't see why you think I may see anything wrong about Orthodox sources, either. I've certainly made plenty of use of them (including Ware's book) in my own editing. I must not have been clear somehow, but I just don't see how to correct it. Evensteven (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced content

There is a lot of it in the article (this version), in my opinion.

Primacy of the Bishop of Rome § Opposition arguments from early church history was tagged in August 2013 as an {{Unreferenced}} section. Most of the section was added in 2011. It contains lots of speculation. I removed the unreferenced content. If anyone wants to argue about any of those unreferenced line item, please post here. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, there was nothing that stood out to me as Orthodox teaching, at least not as stated. I think some of it may have been editorially trimmed or shortened as one might do for an encyclopedia article, but without sources there is no telling how accurately phrased any of it was. This issue is notoriously technical, and simply must have authentic backing by reliable sources. I agree with the removals. Evensteven (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move per unanimous consensus. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 19:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure)

Primacy of the Bishop of Rome → Papal primacy – Per WP:COMMONNAME (see this Google NGram; full current title is too long to search, but first 5 words barely show up together), WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and WP:CONCISE. Current title is unnecessarily long, not as common, and not as concise as possible within guidelines. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicbyaccident: Five arguments listed so far, by myself and the other commenters, isn't enough? WP:COMMONNAME (per the ridiculous disparity in the NGram) and WP:CONCISE (2 words vs. 6 words) should be more than enough on their own in this case. Not to mention that most people have heard of "papal primacy", but will probably scratch their heads in confusion at "primacy of the Bishop of Rome" (so WP:RECOGNIZABILITY applies). And now per @Gulangyu:'s vote, we know that WP:CONSISTENCY applies as well. (Sorry if I'm rehashing, but I think this is a worthwhile elaboration of what I meant when I listed these policies originally.) Jujutsuan (formerly Crusadestudent) (talk | contribs) 21:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicbyaccident: Thank you. I'm rereading my comment above, and I'm realizing it might have come across as rude. That was not my intent. I was surprised, though, that you were asking for more arguments. No hard feelings? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 22:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Major confusion of terms

I notice that throughout the article, there seems to be much confusion between Papal supremacy and Papal primacy. Much of the content in the article is actually concerned with and talking about supremacy, not primacy. For example, see the Orthodox view section, which describes objections to supremacy. I fear it may be necessary to move much of the content here to the supremacy article. Input, especially from those knowledgeable about the distinction, would be appreciated. Ergo Sum 20:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is so much content devoted to Historical Development when there is an entire separate article devoted to that? I think that material should be seriously culled. No one wants to read it twice. Duplicate material should be removed, information not in the Main moved there. It would provide a better focus for this article, making it easier to read. Manannan67 (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergo Sum: @Manannan67: @BoBoMisiu: @Evensteven: I tried to sort things out. Veverve (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: Thanks for your work. It still seems to me that the two sections concerning the Eastern Orthodox view are responsive to supremacy, not primacy. As far as I am aware, the Orthodox actually accept papal primacy, hence the primus inter pares doctrine. It would follow, then, that any reference to an Orthodox "objection" be moved to the papal supremacy article and there instead be a section in this article that fleshes out the primus inter pares view and links to that article. Ergo Sum 16:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergo Sum: Is it better now? Veverve (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: Yes, much better. Thank you for your great work. Ergo Sum 16:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergo Sum: what do we do with all of BoBoMisiu's feedback in this talk page? He has not come back since he has been blocked three years ago so I doubt we can ask him anything. Veverve (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

removed a section

I removed a whole section called "Opposition arguments from Church Councils." Not only were they not NPOV, but they actually cited pretty much only 2 sources. One was a dude called Peter Doeswycky, a guy who has no info other than him writing about "Romanism", and the other was a paper from a pastoral conference for Lutherans. --70.24.86.150 (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peaceray: Hello. The removal of the section is actually a consensus on another article where these points were copy pasted. Here is a brief set of reasons:
  • 1) The name itself is unclear and not neutral
  • 2) The section primarily relies on 2 sources that literally cannot be allowed on Wikipedia. Source #1 is from someone called "Peter J. Doeswyck". Outside of him attaching D.D to his name, it's not even clear that the man has any qualifications let alone relevant qualifications. Google search brings nothing other than his books written in 1960s trying to undermine what he calls "Romanism." Clearly a source that is not notable let alone neutral, let alone academically well received. The other source is from Philip Schwerin. The only notable thing I could find is that this man was a Lutheran pastor who passed away relatively recently. Just to give an idea of how inadmissible his source is, it ends with a line that states that "Rome's history" was used by God to give his church a desire to thoroughly reform. It's some draft apparently presented at a lutheran conference.

I am fine if someone were to remove these sources and rewrite the article using some other, but as it stands, currently, these sources and info derived from them is unallowable. This is a consensus reached by me @Veverve: and @Richard Keatinge:, since the same sort of nonsense was copy-pasted on an article we were editing. --70.24.86.150 (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 70.24.86.150,
  • You state that The removal of the section is actually a consensus on another article where these points were copy pasted.
    That point is nothing without context. Please include a link to the talk page & section.
  • You wrote: they actually cited pretty much only 2 sources. One was a dude called Peter Doeswycky,[...], and the other was a paper from a pastoral conference for Lutherans.
    Out of the 19 citations for the section:
    • Three are by Doeswyck
    • Two cite a paper from a pastoral conference for Lutherns. Why is a paper entitled "How the Bishop of Rome Assumed the Title of 'Vicar of Christ'" be irrelevant or undue for an article on Papal primacy?
You have given no justification for the removal of the other citations such as the Catholic Encyclpedia, Migne, Mansi, or Mathews.
At this point, I want to hear from other editors as to why this section should be entirely removed. Again, please see the WP:VNT essay where it states in a nutshell, Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source. Peaceray (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve, Revelation2134, Pseudo-Richard, Montalban, Matthewrobertolson, MainBody, LaurelLodged, ColoniesChris, and Aelmsu: You have all edited this section, so please chime in.
70.24.86.150, I am noting here that this section has been around since at least October 2011, so WP:EDITCONSENSUS applies to its existence. Get consensus. Peaceray (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceray: The consensus is at Talk:Papal supremacy#removed a section. Veverve (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Veverve. Although the same citations were used for the sections on both articles, I reject the removal of this section on the grounds of WP:EDITCONSENSUS & that there is no explanation as to why citations from the Catholic Encyclpedia, Migne, Mansi, or Mathews should be removed. I am doing so because it is just inappropriate to removed citations & the associated material without a thorough explanation. I am reacting primarily to behavior than to content, so I will not stand in the way of consensus. I find that unexplained removal of cited material with a mere explanation of WP:NPOV often is a deletion based on WP:OR.
I think that a rewrite removing any non-reliable sources might be a better. Peaceray (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceray: the structure of the section and other details derive from these 2 sources. Of course, whatever they may have gotten right is probably supported by other sources, but we won't know that until we get rid of these bad sources, and rewrite it entirely using reliable sources. Just to repeat the Scherwin article ends with how "Rome's history" was used by God to bring a desire of reformation in the hearts of believers. It is not a neutral source, and it is not a notable one to be included here. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceray: @Veverve: By the way, the other sources are suspect as well. While their authors at least are somewhat notable, one source derives from 1700s and the other from 1800s... Immediately raising suspicions as to why a more recent source cannot be used to support these allegedly notable enough counter-arguments. So to recap, the section which is not neutrally written to start with uses 2 unallowable sources and 2 others, at least, that are from 1700s and 1800s respectively. This is just the ones I checked superficially. Good luck finding out if those sources actually state what's being asserted, since a link isn't contained here... and who knows what I will find if I look for other sources. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OLDSOURCES. Just because a source is old does not mean that it is inaccurate. I often use 19th-century sources. Peaceray (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see WP:PUBLISHED. Peaceray (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW:
Peaceray (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peaceray: Look, it doesn't matter as far as I can tell. The fact that it significantly depends on 2 inadmissable sources already means it needs to be written from scratch. The addition of 18th century sources merely raises questions. If these are notable objections that need to be on a main article, why are they not more widely covered? The 2 already violate WP:RS requirement, and these other 2 are just evidence, as far as I can tell, that these objections are either WP:SYNTH or not notable enough to have presence here.

By the way, this also smells of WP:SYNTH, because the "Patrologia Latina" is just a collection of Church fathers, which probably means the section used a Church father quote and then presents it as an objection, which is WP:SYNTH. This has "Unencyclopedic" written all over it. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your characterization of two sources being inadmissible, as I have asked before: Why is a paper entitled "How the Bishop of Rome Assumed the Title of 'Vicar of Christ'" be irrelevant or undue for an article on Papal primacy? Peaceray (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for further examination by editors, some additional information on Peter Doeswyck's publishing.
Peaceray (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peaceray:

  • 1 - Regarding Schwerin: Because it's not notable, has 0 serious academic citations, is written by an obscure Lutheran pastor and was presented at an obscure Lutheran meeting. And is obviously not neutral since the paper ends with these words, and I quote: "Through all this the Lord brought to the hearts of many a longing for a thorough reformation of the church." Does this sound like a neutral academic source to you?
  • 2 - Regarding Doeswyck: The World Cat article you cite characterizes it as "controversial literature." Do I really have to say anything at this point?

The entire section violates 1) NPOV. 2) Has 2 inadmissable sources, at least. 3) Violates WP:SYNTH, by linking a 19th century collection of Church fathers and then arguing that their quotes are objections used today. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Papal_primacy&oldid=1093321795"