Talk:Papal primacy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Definition??

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

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

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

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

Reverted eight edits by Mikejos.ssp

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

From an Orthodox point of view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed compromise.

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

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

• Arguments from Scripture

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

• Argument from Ecumenical Councils

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

• Arguments from western councils

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

• Arguments from early church history

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

• Arguments from orthodox doctrine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For e.g. the statement is made

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

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

Whole swathes of cite-less statements are made such as

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those seeking readability/clarity should fix the Catholic section first

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm continually amazed at some comments

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

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

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

I've also cited another of his books

Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims

as well as

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

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

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

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

Primary vs. secondary sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Athanasius

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apostolic throne

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

This article is too long

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

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

WP:SIZERULE says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are your proposals to re-write the article?

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

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

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

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

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

The lack of scholarly attention in this frustrating. There are rants in the text with no sources. Really, no one ought to find intellectually satisfying silly ad hominum arguments with poor spelling and grammar. If there is no reasonable way to collaborate in this regard, it makes more sense to have this article in the Roman Catholic Wiki-project and another in the protestant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.209.250.224 (talk • contribs)

In good faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appropriate and discouraged use of quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leo I

A section reads

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

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

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

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

Pushing quotes into footnotes

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

Wait until the re-write.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primacy of Peter the apostle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invitation to re-edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The need for secondary sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the rationale behind WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of S K Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Council of Constantinople and its context

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

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

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

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

one dates the response as from the year 500

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

The original document says two things that are connected

a) Damasus held a synod; and,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Athanasius - Council of Sardica

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

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

Stuffing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Council of Constantinople and its context part 2

The article states

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

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

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

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

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

Wetterau, Bruce

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

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