Template:Mediation

Catholic Church has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result October 7, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed January 17, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed January 29, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed January 30, 2008 Peer review Reviewed February 7, 2008 Good article nominee Listed February 15, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 18, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 8, 2008 Peer review Reviewed June 1, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 13, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 19, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept October 4, 2008 Peer review Reviewed November 8, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Catholicism GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). Religion GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:Archive box collapsible

Concerns on the following statement.

Although this council sanctioned the primacy of three dioceses—Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch—Rome had certain qualities that destined it for particular prominence; it was considered the see of Peter and Paul, it was located in the capital of the empire, church scholars were desirous of obtaining the Roman bishop's support in doctrinal disputes, and it was wealthy and known for supporting other churches around the world.

This is not NPOV at all. Regardless of Bokenkotter's opinions this is not all consistent with modern scholarship. Specifically,

• "destined ... for ... prominence" - This is not at all true. It was only the due to the circumstances in the late Middle Ages that Rome finally rose to preminence.
• Rome was not the Empire's capital. It had not been for a long time. At the time of this council Constantine had moved the capital to Constantinople (I believe Nicomedia was the capital before).
• "obtaining the Roman biship's support" - This is at best ridiculously overstated (although a common assertion of the Roman Catholic Church). The churches of the western provinces to a great degree looked to Rome for leadership but the majority of the Christian world, the eastern Mediterranean, looked to Antioch and Alexandria, and later Constantinople.
• "wealthy and known for supporting" - Again, true only in the western provinces which were not the majority of Christians.

Since the statement is referenced I'll simply wait for commentary.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as your points go:

• Rome "rose to prominence" long before the middle ages. There aren't many sources that deny the prominence of the Roman papacy from the 4th Century onward, and there are sources for Roman pre-eminence in the second century.
• Rome was not the Empire's sole capital after Constantine, granted. However the empire in the west was still officially ruled from Rome until 470 or so.
• You dispute the attitude of the Eastern Churches to Rome, but this seems to be your opinion. To alter the text we would need reliable references that made the points you claim.
• The same applies to your claims about Rome not supporting Eastern Christians. Rome certainly collected for the Church in Palestine in Biblical times.

Making changes to the referenced text requires firm references that support another viewpoint. Xandar 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, your assertions are mostly not correct.

• This stuff about the capital is patently incorrect. First, at the end of Constantine's reign, Constantinople was the sole capital. It is true that during various times before and after Constantine there were two or more capitals but starting with Diocletian (3rd-4th century) Rome was never again the capital and gradually waned in importance (see The Art of Rome pg. 211 or The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire pg. 92).
• I do not think you know your history on the Pope's role. Take a look at The Next Christendom in the section "The Next Christendom". This provides a nice clarification of the popular misconceptions about Christian history in classical times. Also History of the World Christian Movement Ch. 28 which talks about how Christians in the East and West viewed Rome and Constantinople in the classical and Medieval times. Despite Roman assertions of "Papal supremacy" starting in the 3rd century, Rome was never actually seen as having any major authority outside the West until the time of Charlemagne. Even at that, the Patriarch of Rome did not overshadow the Patriarch of Constantinople until well after the beginning of the second millenium.
• It is true that during the era of the early Church the Christian community in Rome did do more for the overall Christian community but so did other Christian communities in the Empire. By the time of Constantine the patriarchates were becoming more firmly established and divided, and Rome was no longer as important, politically and economically, in the Empire. Rome became focused entirely on the western provinces. Also remember that during the "dark ages" the Western Church as a united institution virtually winked out of existence (the Pope technically still ruled the Western Church but because of the overall disintegration of the West he mostly only had actual control of Rome). It was Charlemagne that really rebuilt the Western Church. Even at that, the Pope's importance was only really recognized in the West until Constantinople began to finally fall apart in the 12th century.

The stories you are quoting are medieval Western European propaganda that has been around for centuries (and are still quoted in many non-scholarly sources as well as Church sources). Nevertheless, these views have been discredited in modern scholarly circles. When using references we have to be careful about quoting sources that actually reflect scholarly consensus. Obviously you can always find some source to back up almost any viewpoint and, with matters of religion and politics, it is easy to find viewpoints that genuine scholars consider severely biased.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus for a minute on this phrase "Rome had certain qualities that destined it for particular prominence". Regardless of whether Rome was prominent or preminent and when it became so, the assertion "Rome had certain qualities that destined it..." is not a fact but an opinion requiring historical interpretation. Wikipedia must not state things like this as fact; it is not encyclopedic. If we want to say "some historians assert..." or "certain historians assert...", that might be acceptable as long as it is a significant opinion in the academic community. We must separate facts (which in this case are challenged by Mcorazao) from causality (which usually is a matter of historical interpretation). --Richard (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for Mcorazao: (NOTE: Please assume good faith when I ask the following questions. I ask them not in any rhetorical or disputative manner because I honestly don't know quite enough to propose a reasonable modification to the challenged sentence due to my ignorance of the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church.)

It would seem that as time passed, the primacy of the three dioceses sanctioned by the council evolved into two spheres of influence: the Western church which acknowledged the primacy of Rome and the Eastern church which did what? (refused to acknowledge the primacy of Rome and asserted the primacy of each patriarchate) I understand that the current situation in the Eastern Orthodox Church involves 13(14) autocephalous churches which are independent collegial peers. But how did we go from Rome, Alexandria and Antioch to the current situation and how does Constantinople/Byzantium play a role in this? Was Constantinople ever considered to have primacy over the other Eastern dioceses or were Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch always peers as they are today? If the primacy of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were sanctioned by the council, how did Constantinople rise to prominence? I know why Constantinople was important politically, economically and militarily. What I'm asking here is whether there was any overt official manner by which Constantinople came to prominence or if it was just a tacit acceptance that the secular importance of Constantinople gave the patriarch of Constantinople more influence.

--Richard (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well no one call John Romer :>) Mcorazao Rome has always had the primacy of "first"

among equals. This can be seen as a tradition for example in Pre-Ecumenical Councils

like the Council of Carthage. The Byzantine have and will always have love for Rome.

She is still the primacy. It is just that one could say the role has gone

to her head. But Byzantium doesn't hate anyone. The Orthodox love all christians.

Including Roman ones (BTW that would include ourselves). The see of rome is

still even now the first among equals. We can works on our differences

honestly about history without denying history.

Maybe, just Maybe though we could remember better if people wouldn't close our

Universities (University of Constantinople) and burn down our libraries

(Library of Constantinople) hey every little bit helps..

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, several issues so let me take these one at a time.

First we have to be careful about terminology. The "primacy" thing has always been a bone of contention. When I used the term in the above section I used it in the sense that it has been used by the Roman Catholic Church for the past 1500 or so years but let's go back to how this originated. Basically the councils/emperor established that 3 patriarchs had authority over all of the other bishops. The 3 patriarchs were explicitly designated as equals but nevertheless giving them a hierarchy among them. The Patriarch of Rome, the Pope, was therefore primus inter pares, first among equals. What this meant in practical terms was never formally stated. The Pope's gradually began to assert that this meant they were the boss of the whole Church. The other patriarchs, however, always rejected (frankly scoffed at) this assertion. If you notice the ecumenical councils of the Church were never held anywhere near the West (including Rome) until the second millenium and, of course, these were not recognized by any patriarchs except the Pope.

In answer to Richard's specific questions:

• Eastern church which did what - Essentially the "Eastern" patriarch recognized the Pope's authority over his diocese and allowed his name to come first in official listings and that was about it.
• go from Rome, Alexandria and Antioch to the current situation - Well, Jerusalem got added eventually because it was decided that Jerusalem was too important to Christian history to be excluded. Constantinople got added because it had become the Empire's wealthiest city and the Eastern emperors wanted the city's importance recognized by the Church. As the Byzantine Empire disintegrated the huge Churches out in Russia and other regions asserted their independence effectively saying that they were no longer going to be subordinate to a See that had become so diminished in its political prestige. So the number of patriarchs rapidly expanded.
• Was Constantinople ever considered to have primacy - Well, once Constantinople was added to the list of patriarchs it was considered second to Rome. Practically speaking, Constantinople had the de facto leadership role over the entire Roman Church (including Rome) until Rome aligned itself with Charlemagne (although the Popes still continued to assert that they had authority, authority that they were never able to assert outside of the West, and sometimes not even in the West).
• were Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch always peers as they are today - Well, they were always technically equals as stated by law. But back in the days when Constantinople was the most powerful city on earth (literally) it did exercise a good measure of authority. Now, bear in mind that in parallel to the official Roman Church (i.e. what is now the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches) there were parallel dioceses (in particular the Oriental Orthodox Church) which did not recognize any of these dioceses. So that adds another dimension of complexity.
• how did Constantinople rise to prominence - Practically speaking Constantinople became a formal patriarchate when Justinian I said it was. That decision was officially sanctioned by the Church at a council shortly thereafter.
• if it was just a tacit acceptance that the secular importance - These are awkward questions to answer. Constantinople's becoming a formal patrarichate was done officially but the reasons are more tricky to address. If you ask Church officials today they will probably give you all sorts of ecumenical justifications for it. If you ask a cynical secular historian they will tell you that the Church simply rubber-stamped what the emperor wanted for political reasons.

Hope those answers help. The point is, though, is that Rome was never "destined" for any special position. Obviously Rome was going to have some importance early on simply because of its historical position in the Empire. But if you were, say, a Persian scholar in 750 CE you would likely presume that the western part of the Church was simply going to wither away given that Rome was now little more than a large village in the midst of decaying ruins and Rome's actual control over most of its congregations was mostly theoretical. If somebody were to have suggested that Rome was destined to become the seat of power for the largest religious entity on the planet you would probably have laughed.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mcorazao, thank you for your answers. They are pretty much what I expected but I wanted to confirm my assumptions since I know very little in this area.

You wrote:

Despite Roman assertions of "Papal supremacy" starting in the 3rd century, Rome was never actually seen as having any major authority outside the West until the time of Charlemagne. Even at that, the Patriarch of Rome did not overshadow the Patriarch of Constantinople until well after the beginning of the second millenium.

Can you provide a citation for this?

It is true that during the era of the early Church the Christian community in Rome did do more for the overall Christian community but so did other Christian communities in the Empire.

This needs some clarification. What did Rome do and what did the other Christian communities do?

By the time of Constantine the patriarchates were becoming more firmly established and divided, and Rome was no longer as important, politically and economically, in the Empire. Rome became focused entirely on the western provinces.

Again, a citation would help

Also remember that during the "dark ages" the Western Church as a united institution virtually winked out of existence (the Pope technically still ruled the Western Church but because of the overall disintegration of the West he mostly only had actual control of Rome). It was Charlemagne that really rebuilt the Western Church. Even at that, the Pope's importance was only really recognized in the West until Constantinople began to finally fall apart in the 12th century.

Citation needed here also.

Also, please review History of Christianity and History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I'm not sure but I think the relevant passage in each article was written by User:LoveMonkey. In any event, the text in those articles does not reflect the points that you made. I'm not as familiar with the article on History of the Roman Catholic Church but I would bet that it does not reflect these points either.

To avoid duplication of effort, I propose that we hash out here any new text that reflects the points that you make and include proper citations and only then copy that text to the other articles.

--Richard (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mcorazao, I fear you may be feeding your prior assumptions into some of your sources. The next Christendom is not a book that details in any detail whatsoever about the period we are concerned with, and also has a point of view to stress, which is the growth of the non-Roman/European Church. The Art of Rome again is not really a book with much relevance to this topic. History of the World Christian Movement, is your only solid source, and it does not appear to be making the clear claims that you make for it.

On factual matters, the primacy of Rome was established very early, and we have solid references for this. (Perhaps you have a different view of what "primacy" consists of, but that is a different matter.) Clement's letter to the Church in Corinth provides an early example, as well as the famous words of Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus in the 2nd Century. So the wording of the Council of Nicea did not create the Papal Primacy, it existed long before that.

The argument that Rome was not important because the Pope did not attend the Ecumenical Councils in person, again is not one with which the standard histories would tend to agree. The reasons that Popes did not attend in person were many, including the danger of the journey and the risk of becoming physically subject to the Byzantine Emperor. The pope sent legates to each Council, and their views were authoritative. A particular example is the Council of Ephesus, where both the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople were on the opposite side of the issue, but the Council adopted and acclaimed the views of the Pope, saying "Peter has spoken." Xandar 14:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to respond in detail but some quick comments.

• I think History of the World Christian Movement explains some of what I was saying pretty well. The other ones are less authoritative but they are not comic books. I cited them specifically because the sections I mentioned provided some nice illustrations of what I am saying.
• Again, you're getting caught up in the word primacy. In a specific sense, the primacy of the Pope was established early. But the Roman Catholic Church has asserted that this meant the Pope had authority over the entire imperial Church and such interpretation was never generally accepted outside of the West. The Eastern dioceses did, to varying degrees at different times, respect Rome's honorary position in the Church which, at various times, led to flattering statements like "Peter has spoken" but these sorts of things should not be taken out of context (i.e. if the Pope articulated a viewpoint that a bishop liked they might temporarily argue in favor of the Pope's authority for self-serving reasons but they might just as easily ignore the Pope when they disagreed). Truthfully my impression (although I have not read it explicitly) is that Rome did gain a small degree of real authority in the Church (albeit tenuously) during the late 4th century. But it is clear that by the time of Justinian Rome's real authority did not extend beyond the West despite papal assertions to the contrary.
• I didn't say anything about the Pope's not attending ecumenical councils. I don't know where you are getting that.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that we are in danger of trying to determine what the truth is/was? There are probably at least 3 opinions about what the truth was: the view of the Western church, the view of the Eastern church and the view of contemporary historians. IMO, we should spend less time arguing about what really happened and go the sources. It is likely that we can only make a brief summary of the issues in this article and then go into greater detail in the "History of..." articles. Let us spend less emotion on determining which POV is right and spend our efforts documenting the POVs that exist. BTW, I just reviewed History of the Papacy which was largely my creation and it does not make the points that Mcorazao raises either. --Richard (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Richardshur and Xandar. The article text in Roman Empire that is being discussed here is cited to the most oft used University textbook on Roman Catholic Church history in the English speaking world, Bokenkotter's A Concise History of The Catholic Church. Per WP:Reliable source examples, this is the top source we could possibly be using and is representative of the mainstream view. NancyHeise ^talk 15:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nancy, I'm afraid I wasn't making my point clear. If we can source Mcorazao's assertions, we should include them. Bokenkotter may be representative of the mainstream Western view but he probably doesn't represent the Eastern view and, as Mcorazao seems to be asserting, there may be a separate modern academic view. In addition, the "Western" view may not be monolithic. Protestants might view the primacy of the Bishop of Rome differently from the way the Catholic Church views it. It is not our job to portray the History of the Catholic Church as the Catholic Church sees it but as the world sees it (in all its multi-faceted POVs). Bokenkotter may or may not represent the mainstream view but there are dissenters even among Catholics (see the section on Bokenkotter below).

--Richard (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Views however have to be properly weighted, as per the Policy, WP:UNDUE. In other words majority mainstream views should be far more prominent than minority views, and small minority views should not be given space at all. The inclusion or prominence given to a certain view therefore depends on how reliable the source for that view is, and how wide, serious and respected is the support for that view.

On presenting Protestant and Orthodox views of Catholic organization, beliefs and practices; this is not normally the article for that, unless the matter is a highly important one and the particular view is vitally important to the reader's understanding of that. Otherwise the article would just be a mess of denominational critiques. Xandar 19:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation continues below under the section entitled Bokenkotter. NancyHeise ^talk 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor has added pictures to the article and changed some other pictures. I want to explain here that we eliminated pictures in those sections as a result of the last peer review when it became clear that the article size was a problem for some Readers with dial-up. I would like to trim some of those new pictures but I am wondering what others think about them. I personally preferred the picture of the ordination at Our Lady of the Angels to the present picture of ordination. Please let me know what you prefer. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 16:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed those edits (to text as well) & thought, though obviously well-meaning, they all needed looking at. I'd feel free to restore as you like. The two saint pictures could certainly be improved on, if we want pictures in those places. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion... I like the Divine Name of God picture and the new crucifix, however the "Saints" picture is poor quality, badly placed, and makes too many images in that location. The pictures have also now got too varied in size. The priestly ordination picture is too big. The Bernini, Holy Spirit as a dove, is too small. Xandar 19:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Nancy asserted Bokenkotter represented the mainstream view, I thought I'd Google "Bokenkotter" to see what turned up.

I was surprised to find criticism of Bokenkotter's 'Concise History of the Catholic Church.' as "an appallingly liberal text apparently undermining the Church's magisterial authority, and piling error upon hand-wringing error onto its appraisal of the Mean Old Church".

http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2006/09/bokenkotters_hi.html

Now, I'm not in any position to evaluate Bokenkotter or the criticisms leveled at his work in the above link. However, I figured I'd share this with everyone and ask that we not accept Bokenkotter as "the gospel truth". We should look at multiple sources and seek to incorporate all significant POVs.

--Richard (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism seems to state, however, that far from being "too favourable to the Catholic Church" as many here have said or implied, Bokenkotter actually errs in the other direction. Xandar 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree and the sentences questioned earlier regarding papal primacy are cited not just to Bokenkotter but also to Henry Chadwick, Edward Norman, John Vidmar, John Barker (a Routeledge published book), and Klaus Schatz, a Liturgical Press. These sentences are not singly referenced but are double and triple refd to scholarly books of various POV's or no POV's to show Reader that they represent agreement of scholars on the subject. If a different POV could have been found, it would have been included. NancyHeise ^talk 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I was Googling "Papal primacy" and ran across this URL Papal Primacy from about.com

What I found interesting was this section...

Catholic bishops drew back a bit from the doctrine of papal primacy during the Second Vatican Council. Here they opted instead for a vision of church administration which looked a bit more like the church during the first millennium: collegial, communal, and a joint operation among a group of equals rather than an absolute monarchy under a single ruler.

They didn’t go so far as to say that the pope didn’t exercise supreme authority over the church, but they did insist that all bishops share in this authority. The idea is supposed to be that the Christian community is one that consists of communion of local churches which do not entirely give up their authority because of the membership in a larger organization. The pope is conceived of as a symbol of unity and a person who is supposed to work to ensure the continuation of that unity.

There is, naturally, debate among Catholics about the extent of the authority of popes. Some argue that the pope really is like an absolute monarch who wields absolute authority and to whom absolute obedience is due. Others argue that dissent from papal pronouncements is not only not forbidden, but is necessary for a healthy Christian community.

Now, I know that about.com is not a reliable source but look past that for a minute and evaluate what was written. To me, that is an NPOV and encyclopedic summary of the topic. It describes two forces at work: those that "argue that the pope really is like an absolute monarch who wields absolute authority" and those that "that dissent from papal pronouncements is not only not forbidden, but is necessary for a healthy Christian community".

If we can find reliable sources to establish that, as the about.com article asserts, there is a tension between the collegial College of Bishops model and the authoritarian and monarchical model, then we should do so. Relying on primary sources like Lumen Gentium is a bad idea. We should look for secondary sources (Catholic ones with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur if you insist) that describe this tension.

This tension is not new although the latest wave of it probably did start with Vatican II. This goes all the way back to the ancient questions of what "primus inter pares" (first among equals) means.

--Richard (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Hey Richard I have already posted the Eastern view, the Pope has primacy as the first among equals. This meant that the East considered the Pope as a high authority and that he was equal to the other Patriarchs. That the extent of it.

LoveMonkey (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we need to source this to a reliable source. I'm sure you have many of them. Can you provide one or two of the best such sources?

--Richard (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, we have presented the differing views on the origins of the church including the papacy in the Origins and Missions section. These are sourced to the top scholarly sources that are most oft cited per Googlescholar per each view. Papal primacy is discussed in the Teaching Authority section and in the lead, both of which are correct as of this writing and referenced to more than just Lumen Gentium, to Canon Law, Dr. Alan Schreck (Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur) and another source inserted by Defteri. Papal authority is not a disputed item in the Church but outside of the Church. Church law says "x" and that is what we have placed in the article. The fact that there have been some dissenting theologians throughout church history including some who have broken away from the Church itself (Henry VIII and Martin Luther as well as more recent one like Hans Kung) are discussed in History section. What more would you like to see and where do you want to see it discussed? We were trying to keep the article as concise as possible and eliminated scholarly speculation on a number of issues both pro and anti Catholic as well as some neutral insights. For instance, there were some scholars, non-Catholics who discussed the advantages to European society that came out of the religious wars (religious tolerance) and the Church's ability to spread Christianity even through periods of internal corruption during the middle ages. Other editors told us to eliminate or refrain from placing such commentary in the article and stick to the facts out of size considerations. Would you agree? NancyHeise ^talk 01:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nancy, you raise a bunch of different points and ask a question "what more would you like to see...etc" which requires some effort on my part to compose a cogent answer. So, please understand if I don't make a direct response to you immediately. I hope to give you a better answer if I put some thought into it than if I just dash off a "top of the head" answer. Part of my answer to your question will come out as I treat specific topics such as the one that is the title of this section. --Richard (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. The "About.com" article, I would not personally see it as NPOV, since I believe it gives greatly undue weight to people allegedly challenging Papal authority from within the Church. I don't see huge evidence of that sort of challenge, outside a small western Liberal fringe. Conciliarism was far stronger in the 1400s. That's why much better references would be needed to put that sort of statement in Wikipedia. Xandar 01:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xandar, I think that raising conciliarism is a red herring. As the lead sentence of that article states "Conciliarism, ... was a reform movement in the 14th and 15th century ... which held that final authority in spiritual matters resided with the Roman Church as corporation of Christians, embodied by a general church council, not with the pope."

Consider, in contrast, what the article on Vatican II says in the "Issues" section under the subsection "The Bishops"...

The role of the bishops of the Church was brought into renewed prominence, especially when seen collectively, as a college that has succeeded to that of the Apostles in teaching and governing the Church. This college does not exist without its head, the successor of St. Peter. Accordingly, claims made by some, that the Council gave the Church two separate earthly heads, the College of Bishops and the Pope, were countered by the Preliminary Explanatory Note added to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium and printed at the end of the text.[1] This Note states: "There is no such thing as the college without its head ... and in the college the head preserves intact his function as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the universal Church. In other words it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken together, but between the Roman Pontiff by himself and the Roman Pontiff along with the bishops."

Now I know that Wikipedia articles are also not reliable sources and the above passage suffers from the fact that it cites a primary source (Lumen Gentium) rather than a secondary source. Nonetheless, I think the Vatican II article probably is headed in the right direction and we and that we should head in that direction. We should look for a secondary source that accurately portrays what the different positions were behind this discussion at Vatican II and what has transpired in the 40 years since. And then we need to capture all that in a sentence or two.

--Richard (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I seem to be fighting a battle that is already resolved. I thought there was still open discussion regarding the lead being changed from ""The pope, currently Benedict XVI, is the Church's highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance.[8] "

The current text of the lead reads "The Church's highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance is the pope,[8] currently Pope Benedict XVI who holds supreme authority over the Church in concert with the College of Bishops, of which he is the head." I think the current text is OK. Does everybody else agree? If so, I'll just shut up. If not, I've found a couple more sources that help shed light on this.

--Richard (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. NancyHeise ^talk 16:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I should have thanked NancyHeise for attending to my request in this regard. Defteri (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin rite of Catholicism believes that the Magisterium (the Pope and the college of cardinals that support him) is the ultimate authority. Since Latin rite Catholics believe that the Pope represents Christ on earth, they believe also that it is necessary to submit to him. So in regards to the title of this discussion, the answer (in regards to the Roman/Latin rite is, the Pope and the College of Cardinals. I corrected the title of this discussion. Thanks.

Can I remind editors that this meant to be an *encyclopedia* article and not just a presentation of - or apologia for - the Roman Catholic Church's official (there's that word again!) understandings of itself. Therefore it is expected to represent various viewpoints in a balanced manner, not just those of Roman Catholics - and not just those with an archconservative interpretation of things. From a scholarly perspective the article is riddled with all kinds of questionable assertions and reads like the worst kind of Catholic Truth Society pamphlet. Unfortunately it seems obvious that a couple of editors are determined to keep it at the level of propaganda instead of real scholarship. Afterwriting (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some people write more quickly than I and I was planning to write on a different topic first but since Afterwriting has started, I will carry on. Afterwriting captures one of my major concerns about this article. I do agree with Xandar that this article should be primarily about the Catholic Church's definition of itself and its beliefs, mentioning but not spending too much space on opposing and differing views held by those outside the church. However, within the church there is still a wide range of opinions and this spectrum should be captured in the article.

Moreover, there is a difference between beliefs and interpretations of history. This article should not spend much time if any on the differences between Catholic beliefs and non-Catholic beliefs (Christian or otherwise). The article would be interminably long.

However, we cannot state a Catholic interpretation of history as if it were historical fact even if it is the mainstream view of Catholic historians. The following are facts about the Diocese of Rome in the 5th century...

1. it was considered the see of Peter and Paul,
2. it was located in the capital of the empire,
3. church scholars were desirous of obtaining the Roman bishop's support in doctrinal disputes,
4. it was wealthy and known for supporting other churches around the world.

However, that these were "certain qualities that destined (Rome) for particular prominence" is an interpretation of the facts. The fact that Bokenkotter is a respected writer of college textbooks does not make it any less an interpretation. Therefore, it should be stated as an interpretation (e.g. "Bokenkotter asserts..." or "According to Bokenkotter,...") rather than as a fact with a citation to Bokenkotter. In general, we have to be careful about paraphrasing a quote from Bokenkotter (or anyone else) and placing it in an article uncritically as if it were the gospel truth. --Richard (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Although this council sanctioned the primacy of three dioceses—Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch—Rome was considered the see of Peter and Paul, it was located in the capital of the empire, church scholars were desirous of obtaining the Roman bishop's support in doctrinal disputes, and it was wealthy and known for supporting other churches around the world. According to Bokenkotter, these qualities destined Rome for particular prominence.[cite]" Would that be a problem? It seems to me that most cases of seeming bias in this article could be fixed with some fairly minor rephrasing. Gimmetrow 05:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would look for a source that said something more along the lines of, "Although this council sanctioned the primacy of three dioceses, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, Rome and Constantinople eventually eclipsed Alexandria and Antioch. Rome's claim to prominence was based on etc., etc."

My major problem with the Bokenkotter quote is the sentence "Rome had certain qualities that destined it for particular prominence". This is excessively flowery prose and is an interpretation of history. It's great when writing a book for a popular audience but it is an inappropriate style for an encyclopedia.

Also, the quote from Bokenkotter essentially disses Constantinople and makes it sound like Rome rose to prominence over Antioch, Alexandria and all other dioceses when, as I suggested above, the truth is more accurately stated as Rome and Constantinople being two stars both rising to prominence in the West and East respectively. Mcorazao seems to be arguing that Constantinople's star actually rose earlier and faster. I haven't seen any sources yet to support his assertion but his arguments are at least plausible. Let's make sure that we are not falling into a trap of Western-centric thinking.

--Richard (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I like Gimmetrow's proposal for rephrasing that sentence. No matter how fast Constantinople's star rose, it was never considered to be in prominence above Rome. Please see the last sentence of the Roman Empire section. The Council of Chalcedon elevated Constantinople to a position second after Rome - this is cited both to the university textbook Bokenkotter as well as the university textbook, Western Civilization, the Continuing Experiment written by 7 university professors of various universities beginning with Thomas Noble. NancyHeise ^talk 17:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nancy. Mcorazao is arguing that Rome always had primacy (primus inter pares) but not highest prominence. As I've said, he hasn't provided sources to back up this POV. I'm taking a neutral stance that allows for the possibility that there is a Western view and an Eastern view. --Richard (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK... here's a website that provides the Eastern (at least) POV... The Great Schism: The Estrangement of Eastern and Western Christendom. The relevant stuff starts with the fifth paragraph (the one that starts with "But in the centuries that followed, the unity of the Mediterranean world gradually disappeared.")

Here's an important paragraph from the above source:

The different political situations in east and west made the Church assume different outward forms, so that people came gradually to think of Church order in conflicting ways. From the start there had been a certain difference of emphasis here between east and west. In the east there were many Churches whose foundation went back to the Apostles; there was a strong sense of the equality of all bishops, of the collegial and conciliar nature of the Church. The east acknowledged the Pope as the first bishop in the Church, but saw him as the first among equals. In the west, on the other hand, there was only one great see claiming Apostolic foundation - Rome - so that Rome came to be regarded as the Apostolic see. The west, while it accepted the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, did not play a very active part in the Councils themselves; the Church was seen less as a college and more as a monarchy- the monarchy of the Pope.

We have already had occasion to mention the Papacy when speaking of the different political situations in east and west; and we have seen how the centralized and monarchical structure of the western Church was reinforced by the barbarian invasions. Now so long as the Pope claimed an absolute power only in the west, Byzantium raised no objections. The Byzantines did not mind if the western Church was centralized, so long as the Papacy did not interfere in the east. The Pope, however, believed his immediate power of jurisdiction to extend to the east as well as to the west; and as soon as he tried to enforce this claim within the eastern Patriarchates, trouble was bound to arise. The Greeks assigned to the Pope a primacy of honour, but not the universal supremacy which he regarded as his due. The Pope viewed infallibility as his own prerogative; the Greeks held that in matters of the faith the final decision rested not with the Pope alone, but with a Council representing all the bishops of the Church. Here we have two different conceptions of the visible organization of the Church.

Also look at the section on "Barbarian and Byzantine rule" in the Wikipedia article on the History of Rome.

Now, I understand that neither of these sources are reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines. However, I think we can find reliable sources that say the same thing. The key here is that we have to be willing to look for them and to accept sources which contradict the Western POV. --Richard (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source above, though well-written, is still a source which is getting over a particular (Eastern Orthodox) viewpoint. And just as the Western Church can read back its own current view of papal primacy on the past, so too can the Eastern Church, to justify its present position, downgrade the view held of the Papacy by the Eastern Church before the schism. Orthodox accounts are, for example, liable to downplay the political hold of the Emperors over the Constantinople patriarchate on policy and other matters. So care is still needed in finding a reliable source for this issue. Xandar 21:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely in favor of including other POV's and I appreciate the help Richard. But this source says the same thing our text says "the Greeks held that in matters of the faith the final decision rested not with the Pope alone, but with a Council representing all the bishops of the Church." This is what the Western Church believes too and the Council representing all the bishops, Council of Chalcedon made a decision to elevate Constantinople to a position second to Rome. This is not a debateable topic but a fact found in all history books. However, these statements "The Pope viewed infallibility as his own prerogative;" and "Here we have two different conceptions of the visible organization of the Church" appears more like scholarly speculation which we can include to show the different interpretations of that decision by East and West. I would rather find some other way to bring out this difference if we can find it. Richard did you read further down in the History section to see the whole story of how the schism occurred? It was not at Council of Chalcedon but during the Crusades and the sack of Constantinople that the schism became decisive. NancyHeise ^talk 22:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for not having gotten back sooner. There had been some additional references requested so let me provide a few.

• Meyendorff, John: The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church, pg. 19-21.

This is a well-respected text on Orthodox history. The section discusses how the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople was viewed in the East and the real authority each had. Among other things it states

Under John the Faster (582-595), the title of "ecumenical patriarch" was adopted by the archbishop of the capital (Constantinople). This title was interpreted by Pope Gregory the Great as a challenge to papal primacy, but, in fact, it did not imply a claim to universal jurisdiction but rather to a permanent and essentially political position in the oikumene, i.e., the orbis christianorum (christian world), ideally headed by the emperor.

...

In the eight century, the diocese of Illyricum and also southern Italy were included in the patriarchate (of Constantinople) at the expense of the church of Rome.

This section explains that, although the Pope's primacy was theoretically respected, ultimately the Pope had no real power in the East and, until Charlemagne's rise, had diminishing power in the West.

• Hutton, William Holden: The Church and the Barbarians, pg. 66-68

This discusses the 6th century struggles for power between bishops in the East and Rome. The point to observe is that the Rome's authority outside of the West was clearly not well established.

• Fahlbusch, Erwin: The Encyclopedia of Christianity, pg. 273

This discussion is slightly biased toward the West but nevertheless states

In theological controversies Rome and its bishops were inferior in numbers and competence to Eastern theologians.

...

Though claiming to be the final appeals court, Rome still had no central function in the church of the West.

This is discussing the Church around and after the 4th century. Clearly they are disputing both Rome's political and doctrinal authority in the Church.

• Frend, W. H. C.: The Early Church, pg. 75

The book states

Rome ... was a wealthy, influential, but none the less a curiously obscure Church. With the exception of Adoptionists it never produced a theological school of its own, and down to the time of Leo, elected no bishop who could claim world authority through his own personality.

This statement is talking particularly about the first couple of centuries of the Church. Although the book does go on to discuss Rome's increasing influence in the Church up to the 4th century this statement (in addition to others) is making the point that Rome was not a predominant theological authority in the early Church, even by the 3rd century. The book does discuss the fact that Rome gained authority in the Church up through the 3rd-4th century due to the city's importance (which began to wane in the 3rd century). But even at that it does not imply that Rome ever had strict authority in any matters over the whole Church.

• Liddel, Peter P.: From the Dark Ages to the Renaissance, pp. 27-28

The book states, regarding the Middle Ages

In practice Christianity largely functioned on a kingdom-by-kingdom basis, as kings appointed bishops and were unwilling to allow too much contact with other Churches ...

...

The role of the papacy in the post-Roman period was extremely limited. In preceding centuries, the papacy had established its reputation as a bastion of orthodoxy, but the ability of individual popes to intervene in a set of events depended upon their location. In central and sourthern Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, popes enjoyed full metropolitan powers. ... Elsewhere popes had ... little active influence.

The full text discusses the fact that, during the Middle Ages, until Charlemagne's unification efforts, Rome had virtually no real authority in the West (much less the East) outside of specific nearby regions. This not only included organizational matters but also doctrine and rites.

I will point out a concern that the rebuttals all seem to focus around sources specifically centered around the Roman Catholic Church as well as Wikipedia articles centered around the same. If you read references focused on Eastern Orthodoxy or Byzantine history, or any Wikipedia article focused on the same, you will see the points I am making. Since we are talking about how the East viewed the West, these latter references would seem to be the more important. I hope this isn't deliberate bias on the part of the authors here.

--Mcorazao (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think the statement about Rome's "destiny" should just be removed. Frankly I think that there should be clarification that Rome's assertions of authority over the Church were never generally accepted but, since it appears there will not be consensus on this, perhaps removing statements like the first one will have to suffice. I tend to think the suggestion of discussing multiple points of view in this article is generally not a good idea as it will confuse more than elucidate. Perhaps a single statement somewhere mentioning that many non-Roman-Catholic dispute Rome's assertions of authority is as far as that should go in the article.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not suggest your proposed wording here? I think stating that Rome's assertions of authority "were never generally accepted", is not backed by the sources though. Xandar 11:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Xandar that "were never generally accepted" is probably not the right formulation to use. I would like to draw everyone's attention to the following text from our article on Pope Leo I...

At the Second Council of Ephesus, Leo's representatives delivered his famous Tome (Latin text, a letter), or statement of the faith of the Roman Church in the form of a letter addressed to Flavian, which repeats, in close adherence to Augustine, the formulas of western Christology, without really touching the problem that was agitating the East. The council did not read the letter, and paid no attention to the protests of Leo's legates, but deposed Flavian and Eusebius, who appealed to Rome.

Leo demanded of the emperor that an ecumenical council should be held in Italy, and in the meantime, at a Roman synod in October, 449, repudiated all the decisions of the "Robber Synod." Without going into a critical examination of its dogmatic decrees, in his letters to the emperor and others he demanded the deposition of Eutyches as a Manichean and Docetic heretic.

With the death of Theodosius II in 450 and the sudden change in the Eastern situation, Anatolius, the new patriarch of Constantinople fulfilled Leo's requirements, and his Tome was everywhere read and recognized.

Leo was now no longer desirous of having a council, especially since it was not to be held in Italy. Instead, it was called to meet at Nicaea, then subsequently transferred to Chalcedon, where his legates held at least an honorary presidency, and where the bishops recognized him as the interpreter of the voice of Peter and as the head of their body, requesting of him the confirmation of their decrees. He firmly declined to confirm their disciplinary arrangements, which seemed to allow Constantinople a practically equal authority with Rome and regarded the civil importance of a city as a determining factor in its ecclesiastical position; but he strongly supported its dogmatic decrees, especially when, after the accession of the Emperor Leo I (457) there seemed to be a disposition toward compromise with the Eutychians.

If the above is an accurate account of historical events, it suggests a pontiff that is struggling to influence the Eastern church with limited success only when the emperor of the Byzantine empire agrees with him. I think it is not appropriate to have text that suggests that the Roman pontiff was in tight control of the entire Christian church from Peter until the Iconoclasm controversy in the 8th century. The wording "never generally accepted" is perhaps a bit too strong. What Mcorazao seems to be suggesting is that there was a general deference to Rome on doctrinal issues, especially because the East, having a heavy Greek philosophical bent, tended to get into a lot of doctrinal disputes and they appealed to Rome as a neutral third-party. In terms of ecclesiological authority, however, the claim is that the East never acceded to Rome's claims.

--Richard (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I think I mostly agree with what you are saying here at the end. However, I still think you folks are trying too hard to find an excuse to see the Pope as having more authority than he actually possessed. I am not married to the explicit wording "never generally accepted" but I think it is generally accurate. As I mentioned the Patriarch of Rome gained some standing in the 3rd and 4th centuries but, although the Pope's primacy was at times used as an excuse to support the position of one faction or another, his real authority, even in matters of doctrine, was not particularly greater than his other counterparts (and often was less). Again, though, it seems that we will never agree on that so I'm proposing simply removing statements that imply the Pope's having more authority than the other Patriarch's (the primacy can be mentioned but there should not be an implication of unbalanced authority).

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on the web. It's a student paper written apparently by someone attending Catholic University of America. Now, I know this is definitely not a reliable source. I'm not suggesting that it is.

However, I'm curious whether the editors of this article agree with the general thrust of the paper's thesis. The paper relies on only one source Bernhard Schimmelpfennig, The Papacy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992). I would like to know is whether anyone is familiar with Schimmelpfennig in general and this work in particular. Is Schimmelpfennig a reliable source? --Richard (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking personally I can't say I agree with the thrust of the essay. It is unduly based on one book by Bernhard Schimmelpfennig - who has come up before in discussions here as having a Liberal and radical view of the early church as an atomised confederacy, with groups often holding differing beliefs. It is a view, but a liberal minority view (in the West at least), and certainly not a fact, as Mcorazao seems to argue. One error in the essay is that it lends undue weight to the title "Pope", which is an unofficial title, simply related to "Father" and "Patriarch". I think most people would agree that there was always a Primacy of honour, and of theological purity throughout the Church. On issues of direct governance, I'm sure Patriarchs (and others) have often stood on their episcopal authority, and said the equivalent of "This is my patch." But that doesn't amount to a rejection of Papal primacy. In this I think it is a mistake to read the Eastern and Coptic church's views on the papacy NOW (or even in the 12th Century) and assume that those were the views held in 600 or 800AD before the schism. Anyway what I'm saying is that we do need some solid references for big changes. If a minor rewording is proposed, lets see if it is agreeable. Xandar 23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have cited several sources that say much the same thing, albeit not nearly so succinctly. As far as whether I agree with the whole essay the main thrust seems to me consistent with modern scholarship on the subject. To be honest I am not particularly familiar with Schimmelpfennig so I cannot speak to how out of the mainstream he is in general. But it is certainly true that there is really nothing in the way of hard evidence to prove continuity of succession from Peter to the current patriarchs or even that Peter was clearly seen as the leader of the community in Rome.

I will point out again that we have to be careful about placing too much emphasis on religious sources when talking about the scholarly community. The Roman Catholic Church obviously has explicit reasons to be biased.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:NancyHeise wrote: "Richard did you read further down in the History section to see the whole story of how the schism occurred? It was not at Council of Chalcedon but during the Crusades and the sack of Constantinople that the schism became decisive. "

Nancy, what point are you trying to make? Your suggestion highlights exactly the point that I'm trying to make. This article doesn't mention differences between East and West arising until the Iconoclasm controversy of the 8th century. In response to your suggestion that I read the History section of this article, I would like to suggest that you read History of Rome#Barbarian and Byzantine rule, East-West Schism#Rise of Rome and History of the Eastern Orthodox Church#Tensions between the East and the West.

I think you will see a different historical narrative being put forth in these articles. The facts are the same but there are different opinions regarding the interpretation of the facts as to when the first cracks between East and West started (that is, those articles present a less Roman-centric POV).

These are not facts but interpretations of history but the interpretation presented is that the roots of the schism run all the way back to Constantine's movement of the capital to Constantinople. I am not trying to argue that those articles are "right" and this article is "wrong". However, IMO, it's just a horrible idea to assert that THIS article is supposed to present the Catholic view of history and other articles are supposed to present the Orthodox view. Why should the reader read multiple articles with multiple POVs and then have to synthesize across articles to build a unified understanding of the theological and ecclesiological landscape? That's just plain unencyclopedic. Is it what you'd expect from the Encyclopedia Britannica? Is it what you would ask for if you were an editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica?

I think the exact same view of history should be presented in all articles that treat the topic. That is, all the narratives should be NPOV, presenting all the significant POVs. Not "the mainstream Catholic view" in the Roman Catholic Church article and "the mainstream Orthodox view" in the Eastern Orthodox Church article. Yes, each article will emphasize different points based on the subject of the article but we should never have one article say "X is true" and another say "X is not true". Instead, both articles should say "Some say X is true and others say X is not true."

NB: The assertion of the above paragraph is intended to apply ONLY to the "History" sections of articles and NOT to the "Beliefs and Practices" sections.

--Richard (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Richard, I agree with you completely. It seems to surprise people that I am not out to create a Roman Catholic POV of history, I am just putting the facts on the page as they appear in the university textbooks and most oft cited scholarly works that we have chosen to use in this article after much discussion with many editors over several months last year. The sources you see as references are those representing all notable POV's and on sensitive issues, we took care to include multiple authors of various POV's to support the sentences which is why those sentences have several refs after them. The facts on Chalcedon and papal primacy have been treated in that regard. The article is a summary of events, not a detailed expose so we can not possible be expected to include every possible perception of every event over 2000 years! :) If you would like to insert a different wording using different sources I don't have a problem but I think we should respect what the sources used actually say about these issues. These are not POV pop culture history books, these are the best scholarly works and university textbooks we could find using the best authors reflected on Googlescholar. NancyHeise ^talk 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:NancyHeise has filed a Request for Mediation. I have archived this Talk Page up to and including the RFC. Now that a request for mediation has been filed, there seems little point to continuing the RFC until we know whether or not the request for mediation has been accepted or not. Besides, this Talk Page was way too long and was in desperate need of archiving. Let's continue other open topics but park the "official name" discussion until mediation either starts or is declined. I note, by the way, that seemed to be now new participants in the RFC discussion. In other words, we requested comment and got none. --Richard (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the RFC section should have been kept, since it provides a summary of both sides of the discussion at the point it has now reached. So I am giving a link to it here. Defteri (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I considered doing that but decided against it as it would have required having two copies of the RFC (one in the archive and one elsewhere). There is a link to it in the Request for Mediation. If there is a consensus for it, we could create a standalone copy of it in Talk:Roman Catholic Church/RFC or a similar title. --Richard (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my comment on Talk:East-West Schism titled "Theological Issues". I propose a new article Theological differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church to factor out the lengthy theological discussion which is now dominating the article. I recognize that the proposed article title is excessively long and that comparison articles in general are tricky to manage. That's why I'm looking for feedback to see if there are other solutions.

--Richard (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it would be an interesting article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great idea for an article. I think it is articles like that that make Wikipedia interesting. I encourage it but I am not going to work on it at present. I am working on something non-controversial, an RCC version of the Ten Commandments. [2] NancyHeise ^talk 02:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I thought you were kidding but I followed the link and it turns out that you are serious. I have my doubts about the title and scope of your article because, as we all know, there is only one set of Ten Commandments, not a Hebrew one, an RCC one and a Protestant one. IMO, a better title would be Ten Commandments and Roman Catholic teaching. But, I'll leave that discussion for later when you are ready to go prime time with the article.

(the previous paragraph was written in earnest, what follows was written in jest)

In the meantime, here is a piece that I wrote before I realized you were serious. You will see that I have made a diligent effort to offend as many editors as possible and make sure that everybody's sacred cow is gored at least once if not multiple times.

But, Nancy, you know of course that the Eastern Orthodox POV pushers are going to come and insist that they only recognize the first seven commandments as ecumenical because the last three were not properly convoked by God. And then we are going to have to make sure that the Orthodox version of the Ten Commandments gets equal time so as not to give undue weight to the RCC version. And remember that the Anglicans are also Catholic but, for reasons that inexplicable, their version of the Ten commandments don't include the one to give fealty to the Bishop of Rome. Remember also that although some Catholic writers may be of the opinion that the commandments were destined to become timeless, this destiny was not obvious to all while Moses was carrying the tablets down from Mount Sinai. It was only after Charlemagne gave his support to the Pope that the commandments achieved their prominence and even then, only in the West. And, finally, don't forget that the massacre of the Huguenots was committed by Louis XIV and therefore does not constitute a criticism of the Catholic Church per se. (to understand this last one, see Talk:Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church

--Richard (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, are you sure you mean the Ten Commandments? Because the thing of which the Eastern Orthodox only see seven as binding are the first seven Ecumenical Counils, from Nicaea I in 325AD to Nicaea II in 787AD. Not seven of the Ten Commandments.

Anastasis777 (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant the Ten Commandments but you obviously didn't get the preamble where I tried to make it crystal clear that the indented text was meant as a satirical poke-in-the-ribs at several of the current disputes both in the real world and on Wikipedia. The comment about the EOs only accepting the first seven commandments was a veiled reference to the fact that they only accept the first 7 ecumenical councils. But, of course, it's much funnier if you just get the joke without my having to explain it. --Richard (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Richard, I was concerned about the title too and I appreciate your suggestions. Before I make the page official I intend to solicit help for an appropriate title. NancyHeise ^talk 22:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are interested, I have created the article proposed above under the title Catholic - Orthodox theological differences as suggested by User:Xandar. The text for this "new" article was extracted from East-West Schism and presents primarily the Eastern Orthodox perspective as most of it was written by an Orthodox Wikipedian (User:LoveMonkey). It sure could use some balance by providing the Catholic perspective. (hint, hint: volunteers wanted) --Richard (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent the sooner we get the issue(s) clearly posted the easier it will be to address them (and also reconcile them).

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is an excellent idea and something that should go to FA because it is an interesting subject. I can help provide Catholic side but I do not know very much about Orthodox church. I have some very good sources that discuss the differences and history that could help. NancyHeise ^talk 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to find that, while we have an article on Lumen Gentium, there was no article on Pastor aeternus. Instead, it redirected to Papal infallibility#Dogmatic definition of 1870. This didn't seem right so I created an article and put some basic information in it. I need help fleshing this out as I don't know much about the topic. --Richard (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another great idea. Richard, I was looking forward to tinkering with my Ten Commandments (Roman Catholic Church) article experiment before I get to other articles but this one is worth expanding. Thanks for creating it and for your contributions to that article. NancyHeise ^talk 17:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something should be added to the article about the rescinding of the excommunications of the Lefebvre Bishops by Pope Benedict, and possible reconciliation with the SSPX. Xandar 15:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that. What do you think of maybe putting it into Vatican II section of history right after the mention of the traditionalist groups? Maybe just add a sentence that summarizes the schism and reconciliation? Other ideas? NancyHeise ^talk 18:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to let things flush themselves out a little. Right now it is a little hot button of an issue especially related to the one that is a Holocaust denier. Right now it smells a little like recentism. Maybe after a couple months when things calm down (or spin up.) Marauder40 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The Williamson page has been a mess the past few days between his sycophantic minions and his detractors. No need to bring that drama here until the dust settles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with whatever is decided. I just thought it newsworthy. Xandar 20:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be recentism to make too much of this. The whole issue will soon be forgotten. This article covers the history of 20+ centuries and uncounted billions of people. This issue concerns a handful of people and their very small flock that were in schism for less than a generation. -- Secisek (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The issue is more important for inter-faith relations than the church itself. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Secizek has resized the Catholic Church infobox, (Template:Catholic Church), at the top of the article. (It is also used on some other articles). I reverted it once, but Secizek has partially put it back to the smaller version, claiming that this is a format "agreed" elsewhere. The differences are: A) The box is somewhat narrower, reducing the size of the Vatican picture quite significantly; B) The font of the text has been reduced in size from 12pt to 11pt. I'm not keen on the changes, which seem to make it harder to read and see. I certainly wouldn't want it reduced to the ultra-narrow shape used in Template:Anglicanism, which I think is Secizek's model. What do others think? I'm not sure that any particular shape or font size are mandatory. Xandar 20:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually like to see it even thinner; currently the text is centered with a lot of extra space on both sides. The picture size is where we agree; I personally enjoy "seeing" St. Peter's and prefer a larger picture. However, having said that, the trade-off for me is acceptable. I prefer to see narrower boxes that do not dominate the screen of an article. It is acknowledged that this is strictly a personal issue, but its my two cents. BTW, on my screen the Anglican template also is quite wide with just a narrow, centered strip of typing. Does template width change with screen size?--^StormRider 22:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a preference, I thought either way was fine. NancyHeise ^talk 02:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the box width is pretty "hard". It was set to the width normally used for article infoboxes, (eg Catholic Ecumenical Councils not the one used on the Christianity page, which i think ugly and not very user-friendly. I certainly can't think of any benefit to the tiny font now on our template. That certainly needs to go back to 12pt I think. Xandar 11:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should ask Secisek to elaborate on why the format was agreed to this size and where did that agreement take place. NancyHeise ^talk 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I explained every one of my changes in detail as I made them on the template talk page, which is where this discussion belongs. I find it amusing that you would assume I want it "reduced to the ultra-narrow shape used in Template:Anglicanism, which (you) think is Secizek's (sic) model" - that template was redesigned to follow YOUR model. So the "ultra-narrow shape" is in fact a size of 30% - versus the current 32% of the RCC template. Let's not be dramatic. Is 2% really that large of a difference? I also see the RCC template was cribbed from an earlier Anglican one to begin with. Let's move this discussion where it belongs. -- Secisek (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to me attention that there are two such templates and they need to be merged. See the template talk page. -- Secisek (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with whatever everyone agrees to do at that page. NancyHeise ^talk 17:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a merge was in order and it went rather smooth - all amicable. -- Secisek (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a major rework of Christian heresy and, as part of that effort, I extracted the "List of Christian heresies" section and created the List of Christian heresies article.

I recognize that both articles still need a lot of work. I invite you to review these two articles and give me your feedback on their respective Talk Pages. I have already indicated Talk:List of Christian heresies some areas where I need some help.

Thank you.

--Richard (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I think these are very good articles and very well done for beginning articles. I am sorry I am not more helpful, I am still working little by little on my Roman Catholic Church version of the Ten Commandments when I have some Wikipedia time.NancyHeise ^talk 17:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a newly-opened request for comment over on Talk:East-West Schism.

The specific locus of the current dispute is the section titled "The Heart as Noetic or Intuitive faculty".

However, on a grander scale, this long-running dispute is over the amount of detailed theological treatment that is appropriate for the topic. The proposal is that East-West Schism be limited primarily to a high level historical narrative aimed at a general audience (high school / college level education without theological training) and that the detailed theological treatment be reserved for the article on Catholic - Orthodox theological differences. Your feedback is solicited.

--Richard (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As some of you know, there is a dispute on East-West Schism regarding theological issues that divide the Catholic and Orthodox churches. There has been a long discussion (not as long as the one here on "official name of the Church") but long nonethless.

I have proposed new text that seeks to break the current logjam but I am really quite ignorant about Catholic and Orthodox theology (as I have proven on a couple of occasions here) and so I am concerned that I may not be accurately representing the Catholic perspective on these issues.

If you are interested in these kinds of things, please take a look at Talk:East-West Schism under the section "Proposed introductory paragraph for "Theological Issues" section".

Thanks.

--Richard (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a temporary article on the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic Teaching here [3] that I would like make permanent but I need help to find just the right article name. Please feel free to post suggestions either here or on my user page. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great article! However I don't think the current name is right. The Ten Commandments (Roman Catholic Church) makes it sound like there is another set of ten commandments for the Catholic Church. I would suggest something like The Ten Commandments in Catholicism, or The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic Christianity or perhaps The Ten Commandments in Catholic Theology or The Ten Commandments: Catholic Development and Understanding. Xandar 17:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Ten Commandments in Catholicism but I think we might need to call it the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism to avoid the name arguments with Anglicans. :) NancyHeise ^talk 00:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after considering it some more, I think I prefer your other suggestion, Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic Theology. Does anyone else have an opinion? already done. NancyHeise ^talk 00:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I screwed up the name in my first try with an inadvertant period at the end and I capped Theology by mistake so I had to make another page, I think I got this one right. See The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology. I'll put in a request to delete the other one here [4] NancyHeise ^talk 01:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Do you think it wants to go into the Theology section of our (suddenly thinner again) Catholic Template? Xandar 11:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was weird, I was just looking at that template and thinking the same thing that you just posted and came here to ask the same question. I think we should replace the wikilink to the ten commandments in that template with the new catholic specific page but I don't know how to do that. NancyHeise ^talk 17:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added it in the "Background" section. Xandar 02:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks XandarNancyHeise ^talk 12:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this paragraph in Jews in the Middle Ages...

By the 10th century most of Europe was under Catholic rule. However this left a privileged niche for Jews in the new order. Catholics were forbidden by their scriptures to charge interest to fellow Christians; therefore the only men from whom loans could be secured were Jews. While this status did not always lead to peaceful conditions for the Jewish people, they were the most compatible non-Catholics for the position due to their shared devotion with Catholics to the same Abrahamic God.

I found the use of the word "Catholic" in this passage a bit strange. Here's my reasoning... While it's true that the Catholic Church referred to it self as such before the 10th century, did anyone refer to Christians as "Catholics" at that time? After all, there are no Protestants yet. For that matter, there are probably no "Orthodox Christians" at that time either. As far as I know, everybody is still just "Christian" at that point in time. So... isn't it anachronistic to use the word "Catholic" in the paragraph above?

--Richard (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose "Catholic" is being used to differentiate from other Christian and pseudo-Christian groups like Copts and Bogomils. Also I believe it was the Church specifically, which set the rule against Usury, rather than it being something necessarily followed by everyone who called themselves Christian.Xandar 10:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there was no contrast at that time between Catholic and Orthodox. Because of the translations into modern languages, most Catholics today are unaware that the Roman-Rite Mass speaks of the celebrant being united with "omnibus orthodoxis et catholicae fidei cultoribus" (literally, with all the orthodox ...). And please don't call the Copts pseudo-Christians. In Europe, at that time, the Copts were considered to be neither Catholic nor Orthodox, heretical, in fact, but Christian. In Egypt, it was the Copts who were generally considered Catholic and Orthodox. Platia (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the usury rule was imposed by the organization that has officially called itself the Catholic Church from very early beginnings to the present day, and because there are other groups that called themselved Christians who did not consider themselves part of the organization called the Catholic Church, it is more correct to use the term Catholic. Also, the passage on usury was orinally added based on information that came from a book on the history of the Catholic Church, not a history of Christianity. 65.10.249.52 (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't dispute that the usury rule was promulgated by the institution that has called itself the Catholic Church from "very early beginning". I'm just asking if the adherents of that church were called Catholics at that time and, if they weren't, then usage of the word "Catholics" would be an anachronism. Maybe we could resolve the issue by mentioning the Catholic Church more and trying to avoid usage of the word "Catholics" when discussing this period of history. Question: Is it just me that's worried about this? How do the history books handle this issue? --Richard (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, I think that we can safely use the word Catholic for that time period and I think it would be confusing to use any other word in this short article on this large subject. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states under the definition of "Catholic": "Finally the word Catholic is used of individual Christians insofar as they belong to the Catholic Church and are orthodox in their belief." If there were no other churches in Europe at that time, then all of the European Christians were essentially members of the one church, the Catholic Church.NancyHeise ^talk 16:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm... well, I'm not convinced by these arguments but let me shift the focus to some other related questions. The above-quoted passage says "By the 10th century most of Europe was under Catholic rule." Well, taken literally, this suggests that Europe was under the rule of the Catholic Church and, of course, that's not technically true. Perhaps a better phrasing would be "under the rule of Catholic monarchs" or "under the rule of Christian monarchs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs)

I agree with the comment about the danger of attributing to the Church or the Pope what (Roman) Catholic monarchs or armies did. The sack of Constantinople is a particularly striking example. But the essential question is: What is the word "Catholic" opposed to here? If "most of Europe" was ruled by the monarchs in question, who ruled the rest of Europe? Muslims in Spain? Then we should say "Christian", not "Catholic". Pagans in the north? Again, "Christian", not "Catholic". Eastern Christians in the East? But they too were Catholic and Orthodox, just like the Christians in the West. Were some areas still ruled by heretics (Arians)? Only then, I think, would the use of "Catholic" be justified. Platia (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole I agree with this, and it is the usual practice of historians. Pre-Reformation, you usually only see "Catholic" being used in contexts like the Crusades, whether in the Levant or the Albigensian ones, ie where non-Catholic Christians are also involved. Of course "most of Europe", at least by the 12th century say, excludes many Orthodox kingdoms, so it might be ok in that case. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should specify Catholic monarch rule or maybe just say Christian rule. However, the ruling on usury came from the Church itself, not monarchs and maybe that could be specified as well. NancyHeise ^talk 01:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the Orthodox had just the same rules afaik. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics are Christians. Have you ever heard the term "Catholic Christian"? Originally Catholics were called Christians, until one of them started calling themselves "Catholics", which means 'universal'. When the Reformation occurred, people started making a wrong distinction between Catholic and Christian.

Hey guys,

I'm a Wiki-layman but I just thought I'd flag the fact that "They like boys" appears under the Subheading of Teaching Authority'. I've got no idea how to edit it out and was wondering whether a more experienced Wikipedian (?) could.

I'm also an agnostic so I don't really care about the connotation but more the fact that this is in a very informative and well constructed Wiki article.

Cheers T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.204.179 (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, someone else already changed it by the time I came by to take a look. NancyHeise ^talk 03:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This encyclopedia is cited by 92 books per [5]

from page 211 of Volume 4:

"Catholic - The word catholic comes from the Greek word Katholikos, meaning "universal". It was first used by Ignatius of Antioch (d. about AD 107) to distinguish the entire body of Christians from individual congregations. Subsequently, the word distinguished true believers from false believers. After the break (1054) between the Western church and the Eastern church, it was used to identify the Western church, the Eastern church was called orthodox. At the time of the Reformation in the 16th century, the Church of Rome claimed the word catholic as its title over Protestant or Reformed churches. In England, catholic was retained to describe the reformed, national church, although a distinction was made between "Roman" Catholics and members of the Church of England. The term Anglo-Catholic was coined at the time of the Oxford Movement in the 19th century. In popular usage, Catholic commonly designates a Christian affiliated with the Church of Rome." This excerpt was authored by John E. Booty, it is found on page 211 of Volume 4 of Academic American Encyclopedia, year 1995 published by Grolier, Inc. ISBN 0717220591

NancyHeise ^talk 15:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Rome claims the phrase "the one true Church" as its title over Protestant or Reformed churches, doesn't it? This, in spite of the claim by a certain Hutchins that it is foolish for any church to claim the title of the one true church.

Many are the views that you find propounded in authoritative-seeming books. The Columbia Encyclopedia, sixth edition 2008 says: "The term 'Roman Church', when used officially, means only the archdiocese of Rome". As you know, this has been shown here to be false. It also says that "Roman Catholic" is a 19th-century British coinage and merely serves to distinguish that church from other churches that are "Catholic". That also has been shown to be false. What is found in an arguably (to some extent) "reliable source" doesn't have to be blindly accepted into the article. The same encyclopedia also says: "Its commonest title in official use is Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." That this is the commonest title in official use is worse than doubtful, but that there are several official titles, not just one, seems clear. Soidi (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment fails to offer anything of salient value here. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to indicate that interpreting a statement that a church claims some title or other (even such as "the largest church in the world") as a statement that the church has adopted this as its official name could be classified as an expression of personal opinion or as original research. Platia (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Platia. The use of the present wording of Catholic being the official name is not based on the chain of logic you describe. It's all in the many pages above Xandar 11:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Xandar and the editor with the name I can not pronounce! Soidi could possibly change my mind in the matter if he could provide sources to support his opinion but after many months of arguments, he has never produced one source that meets WP:RS or WP:Reliable source examples even though I have asked for them many times. NancyHeise ^talk 22:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Brittanica supports article text use of "officially"  : See the definition of "Catholic" here [6] where it states, "The Church of Rome alone, officially and in popular parlance, is "the Catholic Church". NancyHeise ^talk 05:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Church of Rome is officially and in popular parlance known as the Catholic Church. But is this the only name by which it is officially known? There are several names of which that Church makes official use and that can thus be called official names for it. "Catholic Church" is just one of them.

(Unimportant question: Is it possible that your source for this quotation is really this, which seems to be a wiki, allowing changes by casual editors? In any case, the quotation should not be given as from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It is only a quotation that claims to be from an out-of-date edition of almost exactly a century ago.)

Platia is obviously right. An entity's claim to a particular title, such as "the one true Church" or "the largest Church in the world" does not mean that that particular title is the one and only official name of the entity. Defteri (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you guys will call black white if it suits you regardless of the sources! Please read the definition of "Catholic" in Encyclopedia Brittanica, which is reproduced on Googlebooks at this link here: [7]. After it states, "The Church of Rome alone, officially and in popular parlance, is "the Catholic Church". it goes on to say that Roman Catholic is a name "tolerated" by the Church, it is not an official name. Also, why have you never produced any sources to support your theory that the Church has more than one official name? We now have seven that say it has only one and Catholic Church is it. This argument is appearing to me more and more to be just harrassment. NancyHeise ^talk 19:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how you turn the black of "The Church of Rome alone, officially and in popular parlance, is "the Catholic Church" (a description, by the way, of the deprecated situation "on the continent of Europe" in 1911) into the white of "the Church has only one official name". Defteri (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its easy when you look at the definition of Academic American Encyclopedia where it states "the Church of Rome claimed the word catholic as its title". Please tell me where you read in either of those two encyclopedias where the Church has more than one official name. NancyHeise ^talk 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Academic American Encyclopedia does not say that the Church of Rome claimed the word catholic as its one and only title, does it? The Pope claims "Vicar of Jesus Christ" as his title. Does that mean that he does not claim the titles of "Successor of the Chief of the Apostles", "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church", etc.? Defteri (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make it known that it actually isn't the College of Bishops, it's the College of Cardinals.

In Roman Catholic hierarchy there are priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the pope. The Magisterium is actually made up of the College of Cardinals.

Can someone please take the time to make these changes?

Thanks.

71.115.247.173 (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. Actually, if you look at the citations provided and at the articles on College of Bishops and College of Cardinals, you will find that it is really the College of Bishops that should be referenced by the sentence in question. The idea that the College of Cardinals is the source of the Magisterium is a popular misconception.

--Richard (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the pope, all cardinals, archbishops and bishops are all "bishops". NancyHeise ^talk 22:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I should know. In the Roman Rite, they are referred to as the College of Cardinals, it is NOT a myth that they are the Magisterium. And technically, ALL of them are priests. And yes, Cardinals are 'promoted' archbishops. 71.115.247.173 (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the articles on Magisterium, College of Bishops and College of Cardinals? If you think we have it wrong, would you care to provide some verifiable citations to reliable sources who make the same assertion that you are making? --Richard (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My 18 year old who is a senior in high school informs his father and I yesterday he doesn't believe! We're not sure where this is coming from, he says he doesn't believe what he can't see.

Sorry, this is not the appropriate place for discussions such as this. Please consult WP:TALK for our guidelines regarding the use of article Talk Pages. --Richard (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Richard says, this is not the appropriate place for discussions like this. The talk page is only for article improvement. I will go a step further though, and suggest that you ask for assistance on the forums at catholic.com. They would be happy to help. Farsight001 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment on Talk:History of the Papacy#Spiritual vs. Temporal Power of the Papacy. The comment is addressed to Lima but I placed it on the article talk page so as to provide a central point of discussion for other editors to provide their input.

--Richard (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Love God —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.236.135 (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems somewhat ridiculous that an article which states that the Catholic Church it is officially known as the Catholic Church is called Roman Catholic. It is important to note that the Catholic Church is actually a collaboration of 23 sui juris particular churches, and only one of these is the rite colloquially called Roman. However, this term is discouraged as it generally refers specifically to the Diocese of Rome, and alternative terms such as Latin Rite are used instead. This is why I suggest changing the name of this article to reflect the name of the Catholic Church more accurately. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed ad nauseam previously. "Roman Catholic" is an NPOV way of distinguishing it from any other churches claiming the name "Catholic". As a Catholic (choir, liturgy planning committee, etc), I have no problem with the current name and see no reason to change it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but surely it would be a more accurate article if the name reflected the content. Also, seeing as "Catholic Church" already redirects to here, it is clearly not a name which is already used by a different article. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church (disambiguation) shows that the meaning of the term is disputed. Platia (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You explain it well that the name of Church is Catholic Church and that is just the matter of rite (Latine, Byzantine, Malabar, Kaldeian) to be Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic or other, so, please rename the article - from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church only!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josinj (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual situation is historically much more complicated than this. It can, for instance, be argued that the Eastern Catholic churches, are actually separate churches which are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and under papal authority. Many Eastern Catholics actually consider themselves as still being Orthodox Christians who are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church rather than being "members" of the same church. Others, of course, would want to argue against this view. Afterwriting (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is a fact or not, it does not matter. The offical name which so called Roman or Latin Church used is CATHOLIC CHURCH, and that should be respected. Beside, there are NO "eastern Catholic Churches" as separate Churches, there are just branches of the same Church, Catholic Church, only with separate rites. That is only and uniqe teaching of ALL Catholics on the world.

See also:

How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name? (by Kenneth D. Whitehead)

Text from http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm removed

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Josinj (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No intelligent person with an informed knowledge of church history takes Whitehead's polemical, biased, simplistic, misleading and factually defective opinions on this issue seriously. His writings on this issue are next to worthless. Afterwriting (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire! The book by Kenneth Whitehead is the only source used by worldwide Catholic media EWTN and Our Sunday Visitor to explain the name of the Church [8]. The editorial staff of EWTN includes this academic expert [9]. Whitehead was featured on the program Catholic Answers which this same academic oversees. Also, EWTN is a member of SIGNIS, whose board includes a representative of the Roman Curia. Evidently a lot of experts in Catholic church history take this guy seriously. NancyHeise ^talk 18:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Catholic Church" is the proper name of the Church, and I'm beginning to feel that the only way of ending the interminable argument with certain people over the official name description may be to make the change of article title back to Catholic Church. There are people who would raise trouble about that, but we're getting trouble now with the name at "Roman Catholic Church", which is not the proper or official name of the Church. We may have to think seriously about making the change. Xandar 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC) 18:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what if Whitehead is the "only source" used by EWTN and Our Sunday Visitor, Nancy? This proves absolutely nothing - so why you keep going on defending him ad neauseum I can't begin to imagine. Whitehead - and you and Xandar - have not provided any authoritative and incontrovertable evidence to support these claims and you keep rejecting much more substantial evidence that contradicts Whitehead's claims. When you or Xandar can provide an official Vatican document that clearly states that there is only one "official" or "proper" name for the church you will be taken more seriously - until then your - and Whitehead's - claims remain only personal opinions. Afterwriting (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it would be a more accurate article if the name reflected the content. Also, seeing as "Catholic Church" already redirects to here, it is clearly not a name which is already used by a different article. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is further discussion of the naming issue and the cointinuing dispute over the first line of the article atWikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Roman_Catholic_Church Xandar 12:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Afterwriting - We have a total of 7 sources that support Whitehead including Encycopedia Brittanica [10] and Academic American Encyclopedia[11]. NancyHeise ^talk 20:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote on this subject is the strangest note that I have yet seen in Wikipedia. I hesitate to introduce another piece of evidence, but when the Constitution of Ireland was being drafted in 1937, the Irish government consulted with the Holy See to determine the "official" name of the Church. Note that in Ireland the name of the church is a somewhat controversial matter, and the term "Roman Catholic" is used by Protestants and sometimes felt to be vaguely insulting. The term that was eventually used in the English-language version of the Constitution was "Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church". I understand that this formula was used by the Council of Trent.Shoneen (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The First Vatican Council, not the Council of Trent. Soidi (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to include this bit of information but we need to have a source that says it. I have just searched Googlebooks and the web and I can't find any book or source that says Irish government consulted with Holy See to determine the name of the Church. Do you have a source that can help us locate this? NancyHeise ^talk 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that say De Valera did consult the Pope. See Mining the Gap: An Investigation of Discontinuities in the Irish Constitution. None, as far as I know, that say the Pope explicitly blessed the Constitution or any part of it. But it seems that at least the Holy See made no negative remark on it. Soidi (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoneen. The article lead has been developed and negotiated over a long period by many editors. So can you please not make any significant changes to the lead without discussion here first. Thank you. Xandar 12:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we are disputing just one word "officially", it seems to be a bit extreme to use the "Disputed" tag. If we are disputing a good chunk of the Note, then I guess the "Disputed" tag is appropriate. IMO, it doesn't really matter if there once was a consensus for the lead sentence and note; if there is at least one bona-fide editor that disputes the accuracy of the article, then the "Disputed" tag is appropriate.

Consensus requires unanimity although sometimes a super-majority is substituted for a true consensus. If a consensus once existed, it doesn't now. Even if all 15 of the previous editors still agree with the lead, there are at least 4 editors who don't. That represents, at best, a thin consensus.

--Richard (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed dispute "a good chuck of the Note", since I think the phrasing, selection and ordering shows bias. The {{dubious}} template "is for tagging statements that are subject to ongoing dispute among editors, e.g. due to conflicting sources or doubts about sources' reliability." That describes the situation pretty well. This dispute has been ongoing for months. I strongly object to any attempt to remove this tag until and unless the dispute is resolved. Gimmetrow 02:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Gimmetrow is not getting his way here, he is embarking on another attempt to raise the temperature and embark on edit-warring to subvert the currently agreed wording. I have removed the unprincipled "dubious" template from the lead, since this wording is referenced and is the current consensus agreed wording. The use of the dubious template is an improper attempt to short-circuit an agreement and place a personal and unreferenced POV in the article. The proper use of the template is to highlight somewhere an error might have entered the article and stimulate a discussion. There IS a discussion, and I doubt that anyone considers it not to have been a thoroughgoing one. The point of this tempate is therefore strictly to insert an unreferenced POV. Xandar 11:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Way to AGF, Xandar. The purpose of the template is to alert readers to a disputed text so those readers will not continue to be misled, as they have been for months while this discussion has dragged on. This is not a game, Xandar. Gimmetrow 14:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, you are being provacative in your efforts. I also removed the tag because until a new consensus is arrived, the old still stands. We are making a good faith effort to address your concerns through mediation. We are even agreeing to change the lead sentence and the note to address those concerns - just for you! Yet you continue to be provacative and unhelpful to the process by your actions. Please stop. We want to come to intelligent agreement on the issue without this wasteful provacative unhelpful actions like this tag that only make matters worse. NancyHeise ^talk 17:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Richard, WP:Consensus states:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages. In either case, silence can imply consent if - and only if - there is adequate exposure to the community."

It was noted that in the last WP:FAC, there were 24 supports and 13 opposes. Only one of the opposes was for the use of the term "official" in the lead sentence. Because silence implies consenst, I think it is clear that we meet the criteria for consensus. We are being nice to Gimmetrow because he is just so bent out of shape over the use of this approved term that we are trying to find another acceptable alternative while still allowing Reader to see the details concerning the name in a note.NancyHeise ^talk 17:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, first of all, WP:Silence and consensus is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Secondly, I find it difficult to follow your leap of logic that uses WP:Silence and consensus to justify the sentence "Because silence implies consent, I think it is clear that we meet the criteria for consensus". That is not what the essay says at all. It is arguing that you can assume consensus until the silence has been broken. The silence never existed in that there was always at least one voice (Soidi) who objected. If you chose to override that one voice on the basis of a 15-1 supermajority, that is understandable. However, since there are at least 4 editors who are "not silent" and are objecting, you can no longer assume the existence of a consensus based on silence.

Here is what the lead of WP:Silence and consensus says:

Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when you try to build on it.

In wiki-editing, it is difficult to get positive affirmation for your edits (disaffirmation comes with a revert). No matter how many people on a talk page say they support an edit, sometimes it is only when your changes are reverted or substantially changed that you learn that you did not, in fact, have full consensus.

Of course, it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, sometimes it is best to assume that silence implies consensus. You can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting. The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is.

--Richard (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Richard and Gimmetrow: there is clearly no consensus now. And Nancy and Xandar have persistently managed, by the method they have again displayed, to keep the article clear of even the slightest hint that their view is not the only one. But I think we should let them have their way here for some time more. We have enough on hands with the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church. Soidi (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soidi. The "old" consensus was quite thoroughgoing, and has been challenged by interested parties who seems to be newcomers to the article. And there is more than a "hint" in the current text that Roman Catholic Church is used toidentify the Church by many people. We are trying to restablish a workable consensus. Your problem is a lack of reliable sources to support the position you favour. Even if this issue is a hobbyhorse of yours, the article has to reflect the referenced facts. Xandar 11:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xandar, your comment about "newcomers to the article" is an ad hominem argument. It is preferable to critique the substance of the argument rather than against the person(s) making the argument.

Besides, I'd be interested to know what your definition of "newcomer" is. Here are some "earliest" edits for you to consider

• Xandar - May 6, 2004,
• Lima - August 28, 2004,
• Gimmetrow - May 30, 2006,
• Richardshusr - April 14, 2006,
• Soidi - July 22, 2007,
• NancyHeise - January, 16, 2008
• Defteri - July 24, 2008

Now, to be fair, Nancy's earliest edits were to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami starting with August 11, 2007 but that still leaves her as the second most recent "newcomer" to this article. I propose that we ban her and Defteri from this discussion and continue on with the "oldtimers".  :^)

Seriously, Nancy's relative recentness should be ample proof that dedication and hard work are more important than calendar time since one's first edit. I remain in awe of her prodigious efforts to improve this article over the last 15 months.

You may also note that User:Soidi is a sock for User:Lima who is almost as much of an oldtimer as you are. So... can we please stop this injured tone of "it's the newcomers who understand nothing about this article who are making all the trouble"?

--Richard (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding my point - which is that Soidi, Defteri, Afterwriting and others have come into this article largely on this issue only, and seemingly largely to push an intractable point of view on the naming of the Church. None have been substantive constructive contributors to the article and its development. Soidi in particular has been a single-issue campaigner on this issue for nine months, with virtually all of his hundreds of WP edits devoted to this issue. I think that is certainly a relevant point to raise after nine months of obstructionism from this POV group on this issue. They have driven away many of the genuine editors working on this page, who just cannot take the continuous attitude being pushed. Xandar 11:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xandar, I was responding to the literal words you wrote although I do understand that there is a bit of acrimony between the two camps which leads to an unwillingness to assume good faith. Nancy has characterized Soidi as a troll and argued that the other camp has been guilty of harassment which she feels somebody in authority should do something about. Unfortunately, Wikipedia policies being what they are, I doubt that she will get the remediation that she seeks.

I would imagine the other side has similar feelings of injury and woundedness based on feelings that your side owns the article.

To all this, I can only counsel that we remain civil and assume good faith.

As one more attempt to establish that you are working with bona-fide editors, I offer the following:

[*http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Afterwriting&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Count analysis of Afterwriting]]

[*http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Gimmetrow&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Count analysis of Gimmetrow]]

• http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Defteri&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Count analysis of Defteri]]
• http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Soidi&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Count analysis of Soidi]]
• http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Lima&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Count analysis of Lima]]
• http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Richardshusr&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Count analysis of Richardshusr]]

In particular, consider the number of edits to Roman Catholic Church: Gimmetrow (155), Soidi (58), Lima (620!), Xandar (452).

Of course, all of these pale in comparison to the astounding 4089 from NancyHeise.

I provide no edit count for myself on this article because Roman Catholic Church is not one of my top ten most-edited articles. I readily admit that I have not made very many edits to this article because I have consistently deferred to other editors who are more knowledgeable and who have better access to sources. So, as proof of my bona fides, I point instead to the fact that 6 of my top 10 most-edited articles and 5 of my top 10 most-edited talk pages are related to Christianity; many of these are related to Catholicism. I put my efforts on articles that get less attention and can benefit more from my efforts. I have worked on many more Christianity-related pages than Soxred's count analysis would indicate. It's just that I work on so many Chrisitanity-related pages that I have made less than 124 edits to them. Take a look at my last 500 contributions as just an example.

--Richard (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]