Talk:Papal primacy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

Eusebius says that Victor was rebuked and backed down Montalban (talk) 22:12, 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)

You, Esoglou, and whatever Orthodox editor he happens to be warring with at the time, have left a trail of edit wars throughout Wikipedia. I am in no way partisan; on the contrary, unlike the religious zealots here I am a third party observer. Clearly Montalban does not believe your editing has improved his text, and I see no progress here but the same arguments, reverts, and edit wars which have scarred other pages discussing differences between the Catholic and Orthodox churches. I didn't jump in here with sniping, I was brought here by Montalban who asked for a third opinion on what he clearly considers an edit war which is going nowhere. He did the right thing in approaching a third party for a neutral point of view, something which you don't seem to have considered doing. My third party point of view is that he's right; this is an edit war which is going nowhere. I have previous experience in contributing to articles in which you and Esoglou are involved, and I have found you aren't good editors to work with, so I don't intend to waste my time getting involved in your edit war, especially given the hostile attitude you've taken to a neutral third party opinion which was sought in the proper way following Wikipedia policy; I see WP:OWN very clearly here. Take a serious look at this article and try to tell me honestly if this is what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Then ask why it's in this state. Look at the size of it for a start. Why can't you religious partisans understand that your zeal for your respective theologies needs to take a back seat to Wikipedia policies?--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You get lumped in because all you do is support him and offer only the same criticisms. Aside from the 'good cop/bad cop' act it's for the same ends.

Such as regarding POV – which you're more than happy to support another 'contextualising' every objection by a further Catholic response… turning the article into a Catholic Q&A. You allowed this by removing items from an Orthodox section, and he's gone to work adding his church's POV. It's not meant to be a Catholic blog. There's room for many view points, but as with other articles you seem to support Esoglou's viewpoint that an article must contain

Catholic argument

Counter argument, but only with added with furhter Catholic argument to contetusalise it

You make no comment on absolutely pointless edits. Take for example I had a sentence saying that several popes objected to Toledo's inclusion of the filioque. I then, in the very next sentence gave an example of such a pope. In between these two sentences your colleague added the editorial comment who? between the statement making a point, and the evidence showing it. He thus enters edits into texts that are actually answered by the text.

Take your comment below about dumping everything I could think of.

This is false for several reasons 1) I removed argument, such as from Athanasius, therefore there is more argument I had used 2) I had more argument aside from this still, but have not introduced it at any stage 3) If the argument is legitimate concern of the Orthodox church then it's not just what I personally have come up with

Apparently you now believe that a church can't have legitimate objections to a Catholic doctrine after-all.

Furthermore you have butchered the article. Both in moving material into the strange format it's in now and in ruining the format of that which you've moved anyway – which you blame on faulty soft-ware, but you've not remedied it, nor stopped doing it. You've contributed to the article looking far worse than it did originally Montalban (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but your text has always looked like a "brain dump" because there has been little organizing structure to provide a logical flow of ideas. I inserted Laurel Lodged's outline because it, at least, provided a conceptual framework for what I thought would encompass most, if not all, of your ideas. The article is in its current state because I stopped half way through the process, not knowing how to proceed. I expected that we would discuss options to move forward (see the section below for some of my thoughts along these lines). Laurel herself has edited the article recently and expressed some uncertainty as to where to put things. It is not sufficient to just throw out 10 or 15 of the points that you feel need to be made against this doctrine. What we need to do is to provide the reader a "road map" that explains what the major categories of points are and, if possible, how they link together. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I accept you won't see the first section as Catholic POV. Despite it presenting for the most part poorly structured under-referenced material to support the Catholic position on the development of primacy. I got that already.

You now also seem to wish to blame the formatting errors on others for stopping you. I don't know of anyone who's complained about you fixing an error in format. Let me know who has, and I'll join you in a chorus of disapproval.

I had made the categories which you now ask for - and when asked for secondary sources started to provide these. All was running smoothly. You were happy to push quotes into refs. It reduced the size of the article. Despite the fact I removed information - such as from Athanasius, and an over-long conclusion these compromises were not enough. Others here suggested that your complaints weren't justified and I still went on ahead in 'good faith'.

All the compromises I have made to you have been met and its still not been enough. They weren't for instance balanced with Catholic apology to every point so you had to move these out of an Orthodox position so your colleague could get to work and turn it all into Catholic POV.

You may say you're not the same as another, but the agenda is the same.

Montalban (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Pointless re-edit

I had a section on Western Councils, and the Council of Teledo.

I had referenced that Michael Whelton had suggested that Toledo's council defied the pope. I'd referenced a particular pope arguing against the inclusion of the filioque.

This was re-edited by Esoglou to remove the point Whelton had made (which I'll re-add later today as I don't have that reference with me at time of writing) and then put who? in an editorial comment IMMEDIATELY BEFORE the sentence that showed Leo arguing against it.

There was nothing historically inaccurate or structurally unsound about the section. The placing of a question IMMEDIATLEY before it's answered made it look clumsy, however.

Adding in Catholic POV to show 'context' that the popes agreed with the sentiment of the filioque however was also not called for.

Montalban (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Montalban has inserted in the article the following statement: "The Third Council of Toledo held in 589 added a clause to the Nicene Creed, known as the filioque. This despite the fact that popes had argued against its addition." I queried this statement by asking what popes had argued before 589' against the addition of this clause. (Strange that, while most sources, rightly or wrongly, say the phrase was invented only in 589, Montalban says the popes had argued against it even before it was invented!) Montalban removed, ananswered, my query, saying: "Pointless question removed - answered in very next sentence". This presumably was a reference to Pope Leo's refused in 809 to sanction the addition. That was an objection by a pope more than 200 years later, not by popes (plural) before 589. I pointed this out and restored my question. Montalban reverted, again removing the query but without answering it. So what popes argued against the addition before 589?

If Montalban continues to revert without answering an eminently reasonable query, and if the other editors engaged in discussion here cannot get him to change, I shall have to bring the matter once more to the noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How about you ask others to judge his edits instead of inflaming the edit war by deliberately editing material you agreed previously to leave alone?--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I wrote the section below before I read Taiwan boi's comment. I honestly don't get how this is related to the primacy of the pope. Assuming good faith, I'm willing to believe there might be a linkage but I think, if there is a connection, it needs to be spelled out more clearly and cited to a reliable secondary source. Right now, the section reads like OR and faulty OR at that. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Toledo changes the Creed. The popes protest. The changes are continued, and re-affirmed at subsequent local councils. That they're totally disregarding the Pope's protests has absolutely everything to do with Papal Supremacy.

I don't see how to make it any clearer

If one then wants to draw a connection to what I've said about the Ecumencial Councils your question becomes even harder to fathom.

If you accept that I argue "The ECs were called and they formulated material in spite of the pope" is an argument against Papal Supremacy, then your observations that the council of Toledo was also without regard for the Pope would also be an argument against Papal Supremacy.

Your question on this makes no sense to me in the context of your own statements about the argument I'm making Montalban (talk) 04:31, 1 November 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)

For the Roman Catholic Church, both are undoubtedly Fathers of the Church: see page 14 of this book. I am confident that the Eastern Orthodox Church too considers both to be Fathers of the Church [in spite of Maximus's declaration, when put on trial in Constantinople: "I love the Romans because we share the same faith, the Greeks because we share the same language" :-)].

But why separate out the Fathers of the Church? They are a highly important part of Church history. What is "early Church history" supposed to mean? When is the cut-off date? I think you mean by it more than "early Christianity" (down to 325), a period into which the Father of the Church Ignatius certainly fits, but many of the other Fathers of the Church do not. Do you mean down to John of Damascus, who in the West is reckoned the last of the Fathers, while in the Eastern reckoning the age of the Fathers has had no end? Esoglou (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, I was writing (and thinking) sloppily. There's Early Christianity which I would have said ended with the Edict of Milan but others say end with the First Council of Nicaea. Whatever... there's less than a decade between the two. Then there's Late Antiquity. As you say, the Church Fathers run from Ignatius of Antioch to John of Damascus which covers most of both periods. It may, therefore, be less helpful to separate out the Fathers, as you pointed out. I just thought that we could group all the Fathers in one section and then focus on what was left. This now seems to be a not-so-good idea.

My sense is that there is a discontinuity between the chronological presentation of the original article and the more conceptual organization that Laurel Lodged proposed for the "Orthodox objections" section. Do you have a proposal for how the overall article should be structured?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Any reply by me would, I fear, stir up at least one other editor and add to the already excessive heat. Esoglou (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have decided, after all, to reply. I don't think my answer will really make things any worse.

Authoritative sources on both sides of the divide, as well as joint declarations of both sides together, say the idea of the primacy of the Church in Rome existed in some sense and for whatever reason at least from the time of Ignatius. This idea developed broader understandings and more extensive applications over time. The developments were advanced both by Rome and by those who saw an appeal to Rome as a defence against emperors, kings, bishops etc. The developments were resisted by others, not only in the East, especially in Constantinople, but also in the West, who saw them as an invasion of their own authority.

If an editor or editors undertook to argue in favour of those developments, it would be reasonable for another editor or other editors to argue the contrary. But it is not a good arrangement to have one editor argue for his view by picking out some arguments for the opposite view chosen by him precisely for the purpose of rebutting them. This activity is also an application of the fallacy that rebutting an argument for a thesis (say, that 2+2=4) is proof of the falsity of the thesis, for the thesis can be true regardless of the validity of the argument.

I do not myself at all desire to present arguments in favour (or against) the developments. I do wish to ensure that any views that are presented are correctly attributed, without distortion, to reliable sources and that they do not exclude balancing contrary views. Unfortunately, that gives me much to do. Esoglou (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou, it is not for editors to argue in favor of or against a doctrine or the events that led to its development. What we should be doing is describing what reliable sources have argued for or against the doctrine and the events leading to its development. It is precisely this that has been the foundation of my criticism of the "Orthodox objections" section. Much of the current text reads as if the section title should be "Montalban's objections to...". I think it would be great to have more quotes from sources such as Schaff provided that Schaff is explicitly talking about papal primacy. My concern about the "Council of Toledo" text is that it is unclear to me that Schaff is using this as an argument against papal primacy. Is he talking about the Filioque or about papal primacy or both? I'm willing to believe it could be both; I'd just like to see the actual text to verify it for myself.

Montalban has argued that we are applying a double standard, holding him to a higher standard than we use for other text in the so-called "Catholic" section. I have asked him to point out those places and hope that he will do so. I don't think we should apply a double standard. If there are places anywhere in the article where we can be accused of OR and synthesis, we should fix that by citing reliable sources.

I hope that Montalban has noted that nobody has objected to Schaff as a source even though he has been characterized as "anti-Catholic". We need more secondary sources such as Schaff to replace the primary sources which are undesirable for reasons which I have already explained.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is not for editors to argue for or against anything, but to report what reliable sources say. Schaff is a good source of information. (Perhaps I should not have mentioned the qualification given him by an editor much more knowledgeable about him. It is not because of any personal examination by me that I repeated that description of him. But I think he is an authoritative even if not infallible source to quote on matters of church history.) In neither passage of the Schaff passages cited does he say anything that I can find about papal primacy. See for yourself. I have given the links above. Esoglou (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. It was below that I gave links to the two Schaff passages: one and the other. The second is the one Montalban cited. I am sorry if I made you lose time looking for them. Esoglou (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet more apologies. What I gave as the first Schaff passage, is really by the even more authoritative Harnack. I should be more attentive. Of the two, only Montalban's is by Schaff. Esoglou (talk) 21:45, 1 November 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)

Third Council of Toledo

This section is a rolling disaster. The issues with it are too substantive to try and resolve via tags and edit summaries.

Here's the current text of the section:

The Third Council of Toledo held in 589 added a clause to the Nicene Creed, known as the filioque. This despite the fact that popes had by agreeing to its formulation had accepted that any changes to it would only be at an Ecumenical Council. It was confirmed by subsequent councils in Toledo and also adopted in the kingdom of the Franks...

"In 809 a council was held at Aix-la-Chapelle by Charlemagne, and from it three divines were sent to confer with the Pope, Leo III, upon the subject. The Pope opposed the insertion of the Filioque on the express ground that the General Councils had forbidden any addition to be made to their formulary… So firmly resolved was the Pope that the clause should not be introduced into the creed that he presented two silver shields to the Confessio in St. Peter’s at Rome, on one of which was engraved the creed in Latin and on the other in Greek, without the addition

Toledo was not an ecumenical council

The forumation of the Creed was at Council - with Popes agreeing that it could only be changed at Ecunemical Council

Toledo, not being such a council introduced the change.

Popes had argued against this. The local council's change was adopted at other local councils, such as that of the Franks

Eventually the popes adopted it. Whether or not they always agreed to the principle contained therein the point is that a local council introduced something in a manner that the popes themselves had not agreed to, and that despite acutal protests at its inclusion (for whatever reason) its use spread until the Popes themselves added it too.

Several things about that a) the popes protesting was not a means of stopping its spread b) they went back on their own agreement -re: change only by ecumenical Council - arguably, from the Catholic POV they had the power to do so. But that's not my concern. Mine is that they were unable to stop local coucils adding the formula. Therefore it's totally irrelevant to whether Popes had always agreed with the content. It's like with Galileo - he was never prevented from teaching that we revovle around the sun, but from teaching AT ALL. He went against a ban on teaching and was excommunicated. Anti-Catholics argue that he was excommunicated for teaching 'the truth' about the earth and the sun, but this is not so. He defied the church by teaching without permission. Here with Toledo they're teaching something that the Popes are asking them not to teach. Montalban (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Eventually the Popes adopted the inclusion of the filioque.

"It was not till 1014 that for the first time the interpolated creed was used at mass with the sanction of the Pope. In that year Benedict VIII. acceded to the urgent request of Henry II. of Germany and so the papal authority was forced to yield, and the silver shields have disappeared from St. Peter's."

What is the point that we are trying to make here? In the case of most of the other sections on ecumenical councils, the point seems to be that ecumenical councils have felt free to convene without the approval of the pope or even against his express wishes, to ignore papal pronouncements or even to anathematize popes. But what are we trying to say about the Council of Toledo that is relevant to the doctrine of papal primacy? Did it explicitly go against the wishes of one or more popes? The current text seems to suggest that a non-ecumenical council changed the Nicene Creed despite the fact that popes had agreed to not change it except at an ecumenical council. 200 years later, a pope rejected the change. Another 200 years later, a pope sanctioned the use of the filioque. What does all this say about the primacy of the pope and which secondary source asserts it?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• sigh* I have never argued about local councils not convening without the Pope. I'll make this as simple as possible. I don't know what you're reading.

Toledo changed the wording despite the Popes saying that this shouldn't be the way EXCEPT by Ecumenical council

Having changed the wording the popes protested against the changes being made

Instead of accepting the Pope's protest the changed wording spread to other councils

Eventually the popes accepted this. Montalban (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear. I didn't mean to imply that you ever "argued about local councils not convening without the Pope". What I was saying was that the points you made about ecumenical councils were more or less clear. I haven't checked each section to make sure that they are all cited to secondary sources but I'm confident they can be. What I was trying to say is that none of the points made about ecumenical councils seemed to apply to the Council of Toledo. And, with your response, it seems that I was right... the point in mentioning that council is different from the points that were made regarding the ecumenical councils. The problem is... the text that you have inserted into the article doesn't make that point clearly enough. We should make the section say what you wrote above, assuming that you can provide a secondary source that makes this argument. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I never made the association between Toledo and the ECs that you're making. I don't think you understand the point still, so perhpas it is unclear. I had thought that the quote from Phillip Schaff of the Popes finally surerendering to the ineventiable was clear enough

True the ECs were called for without the Pope, or despite the pope etc. But I don't make any claim regarding Toledo and that way. What I do claim is that following its ruling the Popes objected to the change.

As for pickiness, again you've not noticed the barrage of charges I've had to endure from your colleague - most of them based on not undertanding the concepts, such as 'straw-man', etc. It's too rich to try taking a moral high ground in that atmosphere. Montalban (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I continue to be unable to make my point understood. I didn't mean that you were trying to link the ECs to the Third Council of Toledo. I was trying to say that the points about the ECs were clear and the point of the Third Council of Toledo was not. Unless you make clear what point you are trying to make, the reader is left to speculate as to what the point is. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Schaff - but does Schaff mention papal primacy when discussing the Filioque and the "inevitable" surrender of the popes?

The problem with the "Council of Toledo" section is that you are expecting the reader to draw a particular conclusion based on a set of facts that you have inadequately linked together. I think the section could be rewritten along the lines of the following: "The spread of the Filioque throughout the Western Church is an example that illustrates the inability of medieval popes to end a practice that they were, at least nominally, opposed to. In spite of official pronouncements by successive popes, a number of local councils starting with the Council of Toledo added the Filioque to the Nicene Creed. In the end, Pope what's-his-name surrendered to the grass-roots movement and sanctioned the addition of the Filioque to the Western liturgy." Does that capture what you were trying to say? If so, it occurs to me that the section should be titled "Spread of Filioque in the West" rather than "Third Council of Toledo" since that council is only part of the story you are trying to tell. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion. I believe that's what it already says, givent he quote by Schaff and the lead in regarding "Western Councils" in general. However I will think about re-wording it, but it'll be longer Montalban (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You may notice that, despite my complaints about length, I haven't actually taken an ax to the text yet. I think we should work on getting all the points presented clearly and with adequate sourcing first. Then, once that's done, we can step back and see what can be summarized and what can be thrown out as either repetitious or of less importance.

Regarding the section on the "Third Council of Toledo", I don't think the specific quotes you are using are the right kind. What we need are not so much quotes establishing facts such as when the Filioque was first added to a liturgy with papal sanction as we need a quote establishing that a reliable source has made the argument that I outlined in my previous comment. Someone who says that the spread of the Filioque in defiance of papal pronouncements is an example of papal primacy being a "paper tiger". (my words) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

To my reading that's exactly what Schaff says

....Benedict VIII. acceded to the urgent request of Henry II. of Germany and so the papal authority was forced to yield

that is, the pope acceded, or accepted the king and papal authority was forced to yield however I will look at rewording this

Montalban (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

sorry, I think you're reading more into Schaff than I see. Perhaps I need to read the surrounding text to appreciate the argument that Schaff is making here. It's one thing for a pope to yield to a king or emperor, that happened all the time. It's a different thing for a pope to yield to a grass-roots insurrection among his own clergy and bishops. Perhaps you think this is being picky but I think I'd like to understand Schaff's line of argument better. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe local councils as 'grass-roots' - and in fact never did so. In an age of monarchy I don't think for instance that they'd have been held without the permission/involvement of the local blue-bloods. Schaff is explicit in saying the pope's caved in... forced to yield seems quite clear on this.

However, I have also given it a re-write regarding your suggestion earlier (though I used my words not yours which was too long), let me know what you think.

Perhaps you can do the alternative and tell me what you think the Pope was doing when after the several councils added it he was forced to yield. Can you tell me how the absolute non-exercise of any power is proof that he had this power? Montalban (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Pope Leo III is the first and indeed only Pope whom we know to have opposed insertion of "and the Son" into the Nicene Creed. Delegates from the Council of Aachen asked his approval for the addition, and he refused, although he agreed that the Holy Spirit does proceed (procedit) from the Father and the Son. The year was 810. Referring to Leo III, Harnack describes the Popes as showing at first lukewarm support for the West. (The context of the Schaff citation given by Montalban is a rebuttal of the accusation that "the addition was made at the will and at the bidding of the Pope".) In Rome it was not then the custom to sing the Creed at Mass. There is no evidence that in the two centuries after 810 the Popes (while not disowning Leo's decision) said even one word against the practice in use throughout the rest of the West. In 1014, when for the first time the Creed was sung at Mass in Rome, it was sung with "and the Son", the first time, Schaff says, that the Creed with "and the Son" was used "with the sanction of the Pope". Papal support for the West was no longer lukewarm. The two silver shields that Leo put up in St Peter's had long before been looted in the Moslem raid of 846, while the one he put up in St Paul's remained there until at least 1232 (see this study).

Richard is certainly not so stupid as to assert that non-exercise of a power is proof of having the power, an aspersion against his intelligence that might seem to have been suggested. But the contrary idea may be harboured among us that non-exercise of an authority is proof of not even possessing the authority. "Omnia videre, multa dissimulare, pauca corrigere" - See everything, overlook a great deal, correct a little - was quoted by Pope John XXIII. Esoglou (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Having read the two Schaff links that Esoglou provided, I am convinced that the chain of logic that Montalban has presented in the "Council of Toledo" section is original research and synthesis. Now, it may well be that there is a reliable source that makes this argument but Schaff does not appear to make the argument. Unless we can find a reliable source that uses these facts to argue against papal primacy, we should probably delete the section. I hesitate to do so as deletion of text tends to be perceived as a hostile act and so I reserve that action for really egregious issues. For now, I would just like to point out that we have a problem here and that no amount of asserting "how could it be more clear?" gets around the need for a reliable secondary source. Time is short for me at the moment so I will stop here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I understand you'd think that. Even when Schaff explicitly says the pope backed down, you don't see it. I can't do any more. I suggest you look to other editors to have a look at this. You has re-worked in your own mind my comments to a 'grass-roots' movement which I never said, nor implied. I cannot help with your own perceptions any further on this.

Also, Whelton says the same thing, in the lead up to that I gave a reference and despite that still you ask for 'reliable sources'. You have Schaff and Whelton! Montalban (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverting

Montalban, I see you have reverted again without cooperatively responding to the citation requests. Do you agree that I bring this question to the noticeboard along with your renewed reverting on the papal infallibility article? The views expressed on the noticeboard when I first raised the question there seemed to have stopped your reverting on that other article, but you have now returned to your reverting habit. Esoglou (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Primacy of Peter the apostle

I've started reviewing the article for citation requests. I found a citation request for this sentence "Early belief in the Church is that Jesus granted Peter jurisdiction over the Church". I think this statement is problematic because it doesn't present any of the nuances of the assertion. We need to at least make mention of the fact that there is more than one POV in t his regard. I'm not sure how to rewrite this sentence so I figured I'd ask other editors for help. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you having a look at these. I am not of the school of editing them out first. This seems to me a clear Catholic position. I think Orthodox and a swathe of Protestants would accept (with qualifications) that he was the 'head of the church'. This doesn't imply de jure authority, just as today the Queen is head of the Commonwealth, but not de jure leader of many member states, such as India - which is in fact a republic.

Montalban (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Cerularius

Another citation request for this sentence: "In this period Michael I Cerularius tried to bolster his position as the Patriarch of Constantinople, seeming to set himself up as a rival of Pope Leo IX, as the Popes previously had objected to calling Constantinople a patriarchate."

It's possibly true that Michael Cerulariuis "tried to bolster his position as the Patriarch of Constantinople" although I don't quite get the "seeming to set himself up as a rival of Pope Leo IX". I read somewhere that Michael was arrogant, peremptory and self-confident but I didn't really get that he was out to set himself as a "rival to Pope Leo IX". This sounds a bit POV to me. I also wonder about the "Popes previously had objected to calling Constantinople a patriarchate." I thought that the issue was that the Popes argued that Constantinople should not be raised above Antioch and Alexandria and "second only to Rome". That's not the same thing as "objecting to calling Constantinople a patriarchate". Thoughts, anyone? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit a general ignorance of the 'schism' as to me the churches were drifting apart long before then, but historians had often used neat dates to mark beginnings and ends.

Montalban (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

More on Toledo - Reverting 'citation needed'

My article leads in with a reference by Whelton. It backs the notion that the inclusion of the filioque was in defiance of the Pope's wishes.

Schaff explicitly says this was a back-down by the pope. Some have said that they still don't see it, and have also added in interpretations I have never made, such as a 'grass-roots' movement - I don't know what they're reading.

Another reference points to another pope - John VIII, thus making popes (plural) (him + Leo) despite the near endless objections from one to show more than one pope. The information is already there in the article!!! Montalban (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to note that Whelton answers the "who" question of who is making the claim... if that's what it was there for

The two citations it seems are already answered - who made the claim, which popes objected to changes to the Creed.

Montalban (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interesting in learning where John VIII objected to having "and the Son" in the Creed. The fact that he accepted the Creed without the Filioque (as Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have done, even personally reciting it without the Filioque) is no indication of condemning the Creed with the Filioque (neither have Paul VI, John Paul II or Benedict XVI have condemned it). Esoglou (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps more important here, John VIII was not born at the time of the Third Council of Toledo, andy more than Leo. So who were these mysterious popes who "had" objected to the Toledo formula before the Toledo Council adopted it? Esoglou (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, that's besides the point of your original objection - you've simply not acknowledged your mistake and switched to a different attack. Before you were demadning to know which popes argued this. I evidenced this. It is a compeletly different matter that you don't agree with that evidence to saying it doesn't exist!

My evidence is explicit in mentioning objections from two popes. I didn't argue that John VIII was born at the time of Toledo - and if you read the article you'd note that it talks of subsequent local councils and subsequent objections/protests. If you read all the article without having in mind to find new faults in it, your questions might be answered by it.

Remember you disagreeing with the evidence doesn't mean it's not there. Montalban (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No, Montalban, I think you have been missing the point of our objections wrt to the text that says "popes had objected". "had objected" is the past perfect tense (called pluperfect in Latin, plus parfait in French). It designates something that happened in the past before something else that happened in the past as in "I had already eaten when Joe showed up with a pepperoni pizza". If you want to change the verb tense and overall wording to indicate that popes objected to the insertion of the Filioque AFTER the Council of Toledo, then this issue goes away. However, if you insist on saying that the Council of Toledo inserted the Filioque despite the fact that popes HAD objected to the insertion, then the sentence implies that popes had objected to the insertion of the Filioque and the Council of Toledo went ahead and did it anyway in spite of their objection. Esoglou has been making this point for some time and I have joined in based on his exposition of the issue. AFAICT, it's just a simple matter of fixing the phrasing of the sentence unless you really mean to assert that popes objected to the insertion of the Filioque BEFORE the Council of Toledo in which case all you have to do is identify who those popes were.

I will also comment that both you and LoveMonkey have a tendency to pair up sentences in the following pattern: "A happened. This despite the fact that Y was true." This is a very natural way of speaking but it is ungrammatical and thus unacceptable in written form. The second "sentence" is not well-formed because it does not have a proper subject and predicate. One way to create a grammatically correct expression of the idea is to merge them into a single sentence like "Despite the fact that Y was true, X happened." While you are addressing the issue with the past perfect tense, could you also fix the poorly formed non-sentence in the text? Thanx.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have re-read the article text first. The issues I raise in the comment immediately above do not exist in the current version of the text. I have some minor issues to raise but I want to finish re-reading the article text first. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I have changed it, he wasn't objecting simply to a matter of tense, but to the plural for popes. However I had changed this yesterday (local time) and he'd changed the text so I had actually already addressed this anyway before he changed it. I even commented that I had based on YOUR suggestion though not using your suggested phrasing, because I thought it too long.

Obviously these are super-important issues of course :-) Apparently the errors of formatting, and citations needed in the first part of the article aren't. Montalban (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I confess to not having taken a close look at the first part of the article recently. I just did a search for "citation needed" and found that several of the assertions are certainly POV and dicey at best. I'll try to find citations for the not-so-dicey ones and fix or delete the dicey ones. Can you be more explicit about the formatting errors? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

By formatting errors I mean words run together such as under The Council of Jerusalem whetherGentiles is given as a word. I could of course fix it myself having found it, but I just wished to keep it as an example.

There are others. They only exist between Opposition arguments from early church history and Opposition arguments from Church Councils

It could be of course that the words aren't actually run together and it's my software interpreting them as such, but they only happened in the last week or so Montalban (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I thank Montalban for revising his statement, "The Third Council of Toledo (589) added a clause to the Nicene Creed, known as the filioque, despite the fact that popes had argued against its addition". Would he please now clarify his new statement, "At the forumation of the Creed it was decided that any additions to it would only be made at another Ecumenical Council. The papacy had agreed to this." I presume that he refers to the seventh canon of the Council of Ephesus, which (without formulating any creed) "decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea". I presume that Montalban knows that the Creed drawn up at the First Council of Nicaea and that the Council of Ephesus was referring to said nothing whatever about the procession of the Holy Spirit. He should know also that the creed used at the Council of Ephesus was the actual Creed adopted in Nicaea (quoted also in Cyril's letter to Nestorius) and not the later Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which does speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Clarification of that will also serve for the almost identical statement just above it, "The Third Council of Toledo added the filioque despite the fact that popes at that time opposed its addition". Then it will not be necessary to quote the words of Whelton that Montalban has interpreted as meaning that popes in 589 (not those of two centuries later) opposed the addition of Filioque. Esoglou (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Montalban, since you haven't responded to my requests, I must tag the statements in the article. Esoglou (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey's reversion of Esoglou's recent edits

While a quick scan of the diff between Esoglou's last edit and LoveMonkey's reversion suggests that there are issues with Esoglou's text, it also shows that LoveMonkey's preferred version has its problems as well. I think we are better off starting with Esoglou's text and fixing the problems rather than a wholesale reversion of his recent edits. So, I have undone LoveMonkey's reversion. Rather than continue to edit war, it would be better if LoveMonkey could present here the issues that he sees with Esoglou's edits so that we can discuss them and attempt to address them. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Aside from Catholic POV???

From my persepective LoveMonkey is correct in that although Peter may have been in Rome (and this wasn't disputed) there's nothing to show either

a) he had a special charism; nor,

b) that he passed this down to just one particular See

It's a case of talking past each other. Esoglou has 'facts' that aren't in disupte. Lovemonkey introduces points attesting to different aspects, which you've now removed. Perhaps a meshing of the two - but Esoglou is answering to an objection not raised here (but I know some Protestants who object to even that Peter was in Rome at all)

Montalban (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you and I'm not suggesting that we keep LoveMonkey's points out of the article. I just think we should try to mesh them in as you said and I figured it was easier to revert LoveMonkey and then add his points back in one-by-one.

It would help if you could list the points that should be made and help find secondary sources to support them. For starters, you could perhaps look for sources to support points (a) and (b) above. I'm sure there is no shortage of Orthodox/Protestant writers who make those assertions.

I think the best approach is to present the Roman Catholic perspective with counterpoints from (mostly) the Orthodox perspective along the way. I would like to see if it is possible to have just one narrative rather than a "Catholic" section and an "Orthodox" section. Now, I suspect this won't actually work out 100% and that we may well need to have an "Orthodox" section that provides a summary of the Orthodox arguments. However, I don't think it helps the reader to read one side entirely and then the other side entirely. I think we should provide an integrated presentation of the arguments and counter-arguments. (NB: My experience is that it is difficult to keep such an integrated presentation from becoming a series of argument, counter-argument, rebuttal, counter-rebuttal. It takes a lot of work to make a readable article but academics do it all the time and we can too if we try.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Who gets the last word? RCC or EOC?

;-)

Montalban (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I'd like to see RCC assertion followed by EOC counterargument and then stop without further rebuttal from the RCC. I suspect this won't always be possible but I think it's a good model to try and use. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)