Talk:Papal supremacy

Reads like a Debate

This article is supposed to be about the Catholic dogma. While it is appropriate to have a section discussing the views of Protestant and Orthodox Christians, it is not appropriate to turn the article into a debate about the validity of Roman Catholic claims. This is encyclopedia, not a dialectic journal. 76.226.196.122 (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Papal supremacy

Contrary to popular opinion, Papal Supremacy is vastly different than Papal Infallibility. It is not in Roman Catholic Dogma, it gives the pope complete control over kingdoms in the Christian realm, and while not used to make important decisions for all countries, kingdoms up to Modern day had the Kings crowned by Church officials with the Pope's blessing. Thetruthbelow 23:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Primacy of the Bishop of Rome

I think this article is about the same topics of Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. If it's so we can join them. --Tn4196 (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Papal Primacy and Papal Supremacy are separate concepts. Papal Primacy would be the "first among equals" approach and Papal Supremacy would be the "first without equals" approach. The Eastern Orthodox Church holds to Papal Primacy but not Supremacy. 65.124.227.202 (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion regarding importing content from Papal primacy article

Please see Talk:Papal primacy#Major confusion of terms. Ergo Sum 20:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Papal authority" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Papal authority and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Papal authority until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"Papal Authority" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Papal Authority and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Papal Authority until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

My additions

@Veverve: What is it that you don't like about my additions? --70.24.86.150 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

IP, I have already explained that those information were either nowhere to be found in the source given (WP:FICTREF), or that the source given does not mention those information in relationship with papal supremacy (WP:SYNTH). Veverve (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: so I am a bit confused... can you give an example of what I cited that was not where I cited it? --70.24.86.150 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Not in the ref:

• "There is no reason to doubt the historicity or prominence of the earliest bishops on Papal lists"
• "And monarchical episcopacy, rule of a single bishop, had developed by AD 150."
• "In the first three centuries of Christianity the church in Rome intervened in other communities to help resolve conflicts." (the source being an EOrthodox book, I find it very bold if not dishonest of you to use it to create a pro-papal supremacy narrative)
• "As early as 2nd century, Pope Victor already was a forceful enough Pope to attempt to bring all other bishops in uniformity with Rome, which instigated several synods, majority of which sided with him." (it is only about the Easter date that Victor wanted to bring others in conformity; you betrayed the source, and the information is clearly unrelated.)

In the ref, but unrelated SYNTH:

• "The position of early Popes, like the Clement of Rome 'as a leading presbyter and spokesman for the Christian community in Rome is assured.' "
• "Likewise, it is historically clear that the claims of apostolic succession were already made very early on."
• "In the first three centuries of Christianity the church in Rome intervened in other communities to help resolve conflicts."
• "In the third century, Pope Stephen I, during the controversy regarding the re-baptism of heretics determined to 'impose the Roman view everywhere.' "
• "Siricius taught that his decrees (decretalia) 'were as binding as the canons of synods'."

Unable to check the ref, and anyway SYNTH

• "Pope Clement I did so in Corinth in the end of the first century."
• "In the third century, Pope Cornelius convened and presided over a synod of 60 African and Eastern bishops"

From clear partisan source used in a dishonest way:

• "and his rival, the antipope Novatian, claimed to have 'assumed the primacy'." (from the Catholic encyclopedia)

Can be kept but must be put in context:

• "Pope Zosimus, during a controversy with the African bishops, 'lectured them on Papal supremacy.' " (he only lectured them because he "outraged" them by making a decision, decision Zosimus later revoked due to their protest)

Not sure:

• "Damasus taught the primacy of Papacy, and taught that the 'test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the pope.' " (it is more about papal primacy, it seems). Veverve (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: I will take each claim in here by one and cite what the source says. First, you say, that the following are not in the source cited, I will here number them, quote the statement from the source, and then indicate page number from JND Kelly's Oxford Dictionary of Popes, edition of 2010. None of the statements are from anywhere else other than the Oxford Dictionary of Popes:

• 1)"His (linus') existence and leading position in the Roman Church need not be doubted" (page 7)... "His (Anacletus') existence and leading position in the Roman Church need not be doubted" (page 7 again).... So, two of the earliest Popes having the same word-for-word description.

• 2) "the monarchical episcopate, i.e. government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd century."(page6).... It doesn't take much to realize that "mid 2nd century" is 150 AD

• 3) As far as I remember, this was not my addition. It existed before I started editing here. You are confusing my edits with someone else's.

• 4) "He (victor) was certainly the most forceful of the 2nd cent. popes.... he exerted himself to bring other churches into line with the Roman practice.... [When the churches of Asia refused] Victor thereupon proclaimed their exclusion from communion, not simply with Rome but with the church generally." (page 12)... I don't know in what way this is not an exercise of supremacy, or in what way this is irrelevant to the article

As we can clearly see, you were wrong on every count here. As for the others, I would like to hear exactly in what way they are irrelevant. In what way is a Pope stating that his decrees are as binding as canons of Nicea not relevant to supremacy, especially if this act is recognized in the most revered academically peer reviewed book on Papacy? 70.24.86.150 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

1. you have clearly extrapolated what the source says. That the existence of some popes is academically accepted does not mean "There is no reason to doubt the historicity or prominence of the earliest bishops on Papal lists". You have bundled the concepts of "prominence [and reliability] of the earliest bishops on Papal lists" with your claim while relying on the examples of two popes. And again, it does not mention papal supremacy.
2. "in the mid-2nd century" is not "by AD 150". And it is unrelated to papal supremacy.
3. my bad then, I simply followed the WP comparator.
4. it is about the date of Easter specifically. And a bishop excommunicating another does not mean that the first to excommunicate has a supremacy over the other.

-------

It is your own interpretation that Siricius' action implies papal supremacy. And those decrees were as binding as synods, not ecumenical councils. Furthermore, the source does not state Siricus requested they be given such an authority, it states: "Siricus requests that these decrees (decretalia), which are as binding as the canons of synods, be communicated to the neighbouring provinces of Africa, Spain and Gaul." Veverve (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: If many of these are irrelevant, then perhaps we should remove quotes about when Papacy emerged? These are extremely relevant quotes from peer-reviewed sources. You are also being uncharitable. "He (victor) was certainly the most forceful of the 2nd cent. popes.... he exerted himself to bring other churches into line with the Roman practice.... [When the churches of Asia refused] Victor thereupon proclaimed their exclusion from communion, not simply with Rome but with the church generally" --- This statement is clearly relevant to the development of Papal supremacy, I mean, "exerted himself to bring other churches into line with the Roman practice" is clearly something that belongs here.

Also, currently, you are the one giving original interpretations to peer-reviewed sources. All my sources are cited, most of them quoted, from an internationally recognized standard, peer-reviewed source, that mentions words like "supremacy". Please, stop being an obscurantist. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, "exerted himself to bring other churches into line with the Roman practice" is clearly something that belongs here. No; being the figurehead of a reform within Christianity, or being the main person pushing it, at a certain point in time, is not related to any form of disciplinary supremacy.

I am not an obscurantist. In only one of those cases is there a clear link to papal supremacy. Veverve (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: I would ask a third person's opinion, since this is obviously getting nowhere 70.24.86.150 (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements 70.24.86.150 (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@70.24.86.150: Was pinged in a deleted post. Agree with Veverve here. While the IP editor is making extrapolations that are not huge leaps of faith, they are extrapolations that deviate from the reliable sources we have cited in these edits. Extrapolation, even if the logic is sound, is not our place as Wikipedia editors. If a separate reliable source were to discuss these instances in the context of justifying papal supremacy (I'm fairly certain somebody must have) then we would have a sound contribution. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: after @Veverve: reverted me, I dropped all the unnecessary stuff and only put in something with reliable sources. An exact paraphrase of the author. Can you be more specific. What is an "extrapolation" here? Which part of it is unfaithful to what the author states or which part is from a source Wikipedia does not recognize as reliable? 70.24.86.150 (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@70.24.86.150: Without delving too far into the sources or knowing what was the specific thoughts of my fellow editor were, the writing quality and perhaps undue weight granted to the latter author might have been the issues. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I want to know what the issue is right now, in the here and now, not what the issue was in the past. Which sources, which I do currently cite, are either not saying what I am stating, or which one of them are sensationalized? I want to know, since @Veverve: is preventing me from adding any changes to the article. --70.24.86.150 (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Slow Down! In your obsessive haste to revert the OP you deleted my edit, which you then subsequently reversed. I count three reversions of the same material on June 7. You appear to have entered the area of edit warring. I'm not entirely sure what the specific bone of contention is between you two, but Ignatius still needs a better source -which tag you removed. This is tendentious WP:TE and disruptive. Manannan67 (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Manannan67: I thought I did add back your edit, as you can see in my edit summary. Sorry that I forgot to add the tag back, I added it back now.

I'm not entirely sure what the specific bone of contention is between you two: feel free to read the discussion instead of - to your own admission blindly - accusing me of TE and claim I have an obsession. Veverve (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Do not presume that I have not read the above interminable discussion, which in no way clarifies what is the point in dispute. Do you deny that you reverted the same material 3X on the 7th. I should think the edit warring is self-evident. Please also re-read TE. Very busy for someone "Retired". Manannan67 (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to express clearly above what my problem was with each information added by the IP (on my messages on 22:36, 7 June 2022 and on 23:19, 7 June 2022).

Yes, I did revert 3 times. The user wants to add information clearly in favour of one side of the argument, gets contested, I give constructive reasons for my reverts, the user keeps adding back their content each time; and I get accused of TE. Who is not following WP:BRD here?

I would not call discussing content "very busy". Veverve (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You "nickle and dime" over sources but never get to the heart of the matter. What do the disputed sources say with which you take issue? It just goes back and forth. 3RR is not constructive. Manannan67 (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: I do not appreciate you misrepresenting the situation. After you told me your issues with how I used my sources, I tried to be more conservative, and manually readded only those sources which were relevant, and with no embelishments that couldn't be found in the text. You are, at this point, preventing me from editing the article. I literally quoted from an OUP peer reviewed source mentioning "supremacy" and you still reverted me. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I already stated I did not have problem with this one information, but that more context should be added. However, you have kept bundling other problematic information with this one information I marked as Can be kept but must be put in context. Veverve (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Here is a list of my current additions you are not letting me add:

• 1) "Others hold to less "radical views" on the emergence of bishops, and the papacy." (source: Catholic Encyclopedia) NOTE: It is relevant since the line right above it says how a scholar holds to a view where bishops did not exist for 300 years or something like that!

• 2) "He [Jesuit historian] believes that this is because questions like these presuppose modern categories, which took time to develop. He goes on to explain how primacy was understood in the first centuries." (source: The same exact source that's used to only give half of his claim, without finishing his point)

• 3) "Pope Stephen I, in the 3rd century, is the first known Pope to have used Matthew 16:18-19 to advocate Roman primacy." - Almost a verbatim quote of JND Kelly's OUP peer-reviewed source on Popes.

• 4)" JND Kelly described the 4th century Pope Damasus thus:"Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the pope. In 378 he persuaded the government to recognize the holy see as a court of first instance and also of appeal for the western episcopate, but it declined to admit any special immunity for the pope himself from the civil courts." " Verbatim quote of JND Kelly

• 5) "JND Kelly states that Pope Zosimus, when in controversy with the African bishops, "[lectured] them on papal supremacy."<ref>"Zosimus", The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, ed. J. N. D. Kelly, (Oxford University Press, 1988), p.38." - Verbatim quote of JND Kelly

-- These are the 5 edits you are preventing me from adding. Which one of these is not faithful to the sources, or involves any kind of synthesis? 70.24.86.150 (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• 1) needs attribution ("The Catholic Encyclopedia states..."), but otherwise you can add it.
• 5) needs more context, as I stated above

If those conditions are met for those two aforementioned information, I do not oppose their addition. 2) can also be added in the form you proposed

---

I oppose adding:

• 3) it is about papal primacy, not supremacy
• 4) it is about papal primacy, not supremacy; furthermore, most of the facts are unrelated to papal supremacy (the author does not mention papal supremacy)

You seem to think I am attacking the reliability of your source, which I am not. See also WP:ONUS. Veverve (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: I will add the undisputed parts back.... I don't understand why claims of Papal primacy are unrelated to supremacy if there is overlap. Matthew 16:18-19 is used to support both. What's the problem with tracing where it came from? 70.24.86.150 (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Papal primacy and Papal supremacy are not the same thing, unlss taken from a Catholic POV. Veverve (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Papal primacy is somewhat relevant but not the same thing as Papal supremacy, and I note that the article, and indeed the Catholic Encyclopedia, conflates them inappropriately. At this edit I have tried to distinguish the two. I hope this helps the article in general, and also helps to put these suggested additions into a clearer context. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

No it doesn’t. We cite scholars that are approved by WP. We don’t want you removing information and adding your original research 70.24.86.150 (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. While the intention was good, the content added was moslty either unsourced OR, or not contained in the inline refs. Veverve (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both. You will find that the only actual addition not specifically referenced was "Modern Catholics have pointed out examples of early Popes having a degree of primacy among their fellow bishops, arguing that Papal supremacy can be derived from the practice of early Christianity." It seems like a good NPOV summary of the arguments made, a helpful introduction to our rather long section on that sub-subject. It might also provide suitable framing for the additions suggested by 70.24.86.150, and a more fruitful basis for discussions of their usefulness. The rest of the change was rearrangement, a little rephrasing, and a referenced addition. Separately, removing the unreferenced comments may be indeed be a good idea, but I thought I'd try to address the structure of the article first. May I ask you both to rethink this edit? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

removed a section

I removed a whole section called "Opposition arguments from Church Councils." Not only were they not NPOV, but they actually cited pretty much only 2 sources. One was a dude called Peter Doeswycky, a guy who has no info other than him writing about "Romanism", and the other was a paper from a pastoral conference for Lutherans. --70.24.86.150 (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Not because they are "fundies" as you claim, but because from what I see both authors do not seem to have academic credibility and are published by publishers which do not have any academic credibility either. Veverve (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Veverve. We may need to remember that Papal supremacy is an idea only of religious fundamentalists (and religious politicians) who will therefore be appropriate sources for definition of the idea, and to some extent for its in-universe development. On the other hand, historians will usually be appropriate sources for its actual history. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Anglican

I added a subsection "Anglicanism": "Henry VIII's Act of Succession (1534) required all subjects, if commanded, to swear an oath that recognized the King as Supreme Head of the Church of England. Former Lord Chancellor Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher were notable refusers. "

It was removed with a note "this is completely unrelated, and unsourced".

1) I have no idea why this is not related. If there can be an article on the French response to augment "the rights of the State and to the prejudice the rights of the Catholic church", why can there not be one on the English version (I.e. of Henry VIII)? Does there need to be some preliminary sentence to join the dots better?

2) It is not unsourced: it is a summary that links to four Wikipedia articles.

Also, the removal of a section because it is unsourced goes against Wikipedia guidelines: according to WP:USI Wikipedia:Content_removal#Unsourced_information you are only allowed to remove a section boldly for not being sourced when "it is doubtful any sources are available for the information." Clearly there are sources available, because of the four links. The correct thing to do would be to add { { fact} } or { {cn} }. User VuVerve needs to follow the guidelines (as we all do.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• I have no idea why you believe swearing an oath to Henry VIII is related to papal supremacy.
• The correct thing to do would be to add { { fact} } or { {cn}} : WP:BURDEN is on you.

Veverve (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)