![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
In the article is footnote [3] which says Ireneus, Adversus haereses, III, 3, 2: PG 7848. Wrote Cajetano de Fulgure: "Potentiorem autem principalitatem Romanae Ecclesiae tribuit, non propter Urbis amplitudinem, aut civitatis imperium, sed propterea quod illa principium, basis, ac veluti centrum est Ecclesiasticae unitatis; in qua velut in communi omnium gentium thesauro depositum Apostolicae traditionis conservatur". Cajetano De Fulgore, Institutiones theologicae, tomus I, Neapoli 1827, p. 325.
Is there any rule against citing (without translation) another language in an English language article? Montalban ( talk) 04:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Who do I ask for a translation? Montalban ( talk) 08:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
If it's against the rules, why do I need to ask people to translate it? Montalban ( talk) 09:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I missed that Montalban ( talk) 21:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, this is what I got from Google translate:
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 23:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Who are the munus petrinum?
The article starts with is the munus petrinum who founded the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff as Successor of the Prince of the Apostles (Primus Apostolus) and Vicar of Christ... Montalban ( talk) 00:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you looking into re-writing any of it? I know you seem eager to point out problems with one section. Montalban ( talk) 08:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The article also states a "Classic Roman Catholic tradition..." and cites the Greek Orthodox Church's idea of what Catholics believe. Aside from this incident of 'straw-man' ;-) not being a subject of protest by some editors I find it odd that the Catholic argument isn't found in a Catholic site.
Furthermore that GOARCH site simply itself quotes someone, with a footnote [10] that seems to be a dead link Montalban ( talk) 00:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. It was an attempt to highlight the selective application of a rule of 'straw-man'
Montalban (
talk)
21:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
You lay these charges all the time, but I'm not totally convinced you know their meaning - like the supposed 'straw-man' before.
What is POV is the highly selective nature of laying these accusations, or perhaps I'm being unfair and you didn't notice all these errors in the article BEFORE I added my bit?
I haven't seen you racing to add citations to the first part of the article nor alternatively to demand from the editors who wrote it that that they do so Montalban ( talk) 08:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
No, this comment is not more about how the article is overly weighted towards the Orthodox POV (although it certainly is that). I wanted to point out that there have been debates and disputes about papal primacy even within the Catholic Church and those issues have been given short shrift so that this article focuses almost exclusively on the East-West Schism rather than about the entire topic of primacy. (NB: even the sections other than the "Orthodox Christian arguments against papal primacy" section suffer from this overweighting)
Specifically, I note that there is no mention of Conciliarism or Americanism (heresy). Admittedly, both have been branded as heretical but they nonetheless point to movements within the Catholic Church to assert the power of the bishops relative to the Pope. Similarly, there is only a brief mention of Ultramontanism. A more detailed exposition of that topic would be helpful. Finally, the section on Vatican II relies too much on church jargon and gobbledygook. It doesn't state clearly and simply enough that the issue was that Vatican I was seen as giving the Pope too much power and that Vatican II was an attempt to shift power away from the Pope and to the bishops without denying the ultimate authority of the Pope. There is no mention of the encouragement to the bishops to form national and regional conferences (but NOT councils!). Nor is there any mention of the shift of power back to the Pope under the reigns of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
I don't have time to work on these topics this morning but I wanted to point them out for all to consider.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Another editor said
You may have forgotten your ignoring the Oriental Orthodox
Unfortunately, not only is this yet another charge by him of me doing something wrong, I'd already addressed this mistake of his earlier by pointing out that if one puts "Orthodox Church" into Wiki's search, you get directed to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Therefore Wiki's own standard is that where "Orthodox Church" is mentioned it is synonymous with the EOC.
There's actually been a continual barrage of negative criticism of all manner of charges made when they have in fact been mistakes; such as the use of (Sic), what a straw-man is, what part of the article is POV, who actually is interpreting, etc.. This is unfortunately simply a repeat of a mistake. Montalban ( talk) 07:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
In the "Doctrine as the result of development" section, the text read "In this view, too much should not be read into the First Epistle of Clement...". Someone has distorted this sentence from one that presents a positive assertion of the doctrine to one that minimizes the value of the evidence. While we must recognize the existence of opposing POVs and present them, it is silly and awkward to make the first presentation of an idea be a negative assertion. The more appropriate way to present the diversity of opinion is to say "Some assert A while others minimize the relevance or importance of A." I have rewritten the text to indicate that "some proponents" assert A (First Letter of Clement) and B (epistle of Ignatius to the Romans). However, in my ignorance, I am not able to ground these assertions in secondary sources. (i.e. who exactly points to the First Epistle of Clement or the epistle of Ignatius to the Romans?) Neither am I able to ground the objections to these assertions in secondary sources. (once again, who exactly thinks that these letters are not that significant? what is their argument against their importance?) If other editors could help in finding those secondary sources, the assistance would be much appreciated.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I have moved large sections of the "Orthodox Christian arguments against..." section into Laurel Lodged's outline. I would still like to discuss whether it is better to use Laurel's outline or just meld the objections in line with the "Historical development" section. However, pending a resolution of that question, it seems reasonable to start melding Montalban's prodigious but rather disorganized effort into Laurel's much more concise and systematic outline. So I have been bold and started this task. I did the easy part first which was to move the material related to the early church, the ecumenical councils and the western councils into the outline. The remaining material is not so easy to organize and so I figured I'd initiate a discussion here first before proceeding much further. I'd like to hear what other editors think about Laurel's outline and how best to fit Montalban's text into it.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 03:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've already written a couple rather lengthy expositions on the rationale for using secondary sources rather than primary sources and the second time that I did so, I was criticized for being pedantic so I won't repeat what has already been said a couple of different times. I will simply point out that much of Montalban's text remains couched as assertions of fact rather than presentations of opinions (POVs). Moreover, the sources provided are often primary sources or, when secondary sources are provided, the article text is still couched as an assertion of fact rather than the opinion of the secondary source. Without access to the actual text of the secondary source, I am not able to reword the article text into the voice of the source and thus we wind up with Wikipedia making the assertion rather than simply reporting that the source made the assertion.
I did make a bold leap and made this which assumes that the original sentence accurately presents Srawley's position. It would be better if the editor who has actually seen the source would make the appropriate edits to the article text so as to put the opinions into the voice of the source.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 03:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Srawley is a good source. He notes "The individual churches represent locally the universal Church. As Jesus Christ is the Head of the universal Church, so is the bishop the head of the local Church." (page 34, Vol. 1)
Why do you not think that the first section is POV? It presents the Catholic view - the development of Primacy. Furthermore, I thought your beef was the use of Primary Sources (alone). If another writer uses a primary source then why can't it be used in the article?
Whelton might say "Augustine argues in xxx that yyy (position) is maintained" and then quote him to show it. I had originally written something to the effect that many Church Fathers accepted the keys have been given to other Apostles.
Laurel re-worded it as Such an interpretation, it is claimed,[61] has been accepted by many Church Fathers
And then I added the source.
It seems to me at least that she was happy to have someone else making the claim. You wanted the source, and I added that. Now you don't like the sources being used????
I'm assuming that you're the editor of these, but sentences now run together such as At the Sixth Ecumenical Council Pope HonoriusandPatriarch Sergius were declared heretics and the heading Fifth Ecumenical Council= now appears, with the '=' sign
Montalban ( talk) 07:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 09:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I just spoke of one who says that for Ignatius each church is headed by a bishop under Jesus (I quoted Srawley)
The other statement re: western councils is fair and I will look up my sources Montalban ( talk) 10:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The line in the article The general reaction of the see of Rome to the activities of the emperors of Constantinople in church matters and to the advancement of the bishop of the new capital, led the popes to define their ecclesial position more sharply is wholly inaccurate as there are no "Emperors of Constantinople". At best one can say that they were Emperors in Constantinople Montalban ( talk) 23:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Well Pseudo-Richard, by moving stuff from an "Orthodox" section you've now allowed another editor (banned from editing Orthodox stuff) open season on editing material that I had placed there.
You two should be congratulated for butchering the article.
The other editor can now 'contextualise' everything to the Catholic POV
Montalban ( talk) 11:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I have to say it's clear there has been a Catholic tag team going on. Why is Esoglou editing Orthodox commentary when he shouldn't be doing any such thing? And where's the explanation for these mass edits? -- Taiwan boi ( talk) 14:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Re Esoglou, see my response in the section "Yet another religious war" below. I am not clear what you are referring to as "mass edits". Could you clarify what you mean? -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Eusebius says that Victor was rebuked and backed down Montalban ( talk) 22:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Once again we have an issue on a contentious subject which is being warred over by promoters of opposing theologies, resulting in a massively over large and complicated article which is nothing more than a battleground of edits. This is a mockery of what editing a Wikipedia article is supposed to be. This is the latest in a trail of articles which have been wrecked in this way, by the same parties.-- Taiwan boi ( talk) 14:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
You get lumped in because all you do is support him and offer only the same criticisms. Aside from the 'good cop/bad cop' act it's for the same ends.
Such as regarding POV – which you're more than happy to support another 'contextualising' every objection by a further Catholic response… turning the article into a Catholic Q&A. You allowed this by removing items from an Orthodox section, and he's gone to work adding his church's POV. It's not meant to be a Catholic blog. There's room for many view points, but as with other articles you seem to support Esoglou's viewpoint that an article must contain
You make no comment on absolutely pointless edits. Take for example I had a sentence saying that several popes objected to Toledo's inclusion of the filioque. I then, in the very next sentence gave an example of such a pope. In between these two sentences your colleague added the editorial comment who? between the statement making a point, and the evidence showing it. He thus enters edits into texts that are actually answered by the text.
Take your comment below about dumping everything I could think of.
This is false for several reasons 1) I removed argument, such as from Athanasius, therefore there is more argument I had used 2) I had more argument aside from this still, but have not introduced it at any stage 3) If the argument is legitimate concern of the Orthodox church then it's not just what I personally have come up with
Apparently you now believe that a church can't have legitimate objections to a Catholic doctrine after-all.
Furthermore you have butchered the article. Both in moving material into the strange format it's in now and in ruining the format of that which you've moved anyway – which you blame on faulty soft-ware, but you've not remedied it, nor stopped doing it. You've contributed to the article looking far worse than it did originally Montalban ( talk) 22:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I accept you won't see the first section as Catholic POV. Despite it presenting for the most part poorly structured under-referenced material to support the Catholic position on the development of primacy. I got that already.
You now also seem to wish to blame the formatting errors on others for stopping you. I don't know of anyone who's complained about you fixing an error in format. Let me know who has, and I'll join you in a chorus of disapproval.
I had made the categories which you now ask for - and when asked for secondary sources started to provide these. All was running smoothly. You were happy to push quotes into refs. It reduced the size of the article. Despite the fact I removed information - such as from Athanasius, and an over-long conclusion these compromises were not enough. Others here suggested that your complaints weren't justified and I still went on ahead in 'good faith'.
All the compromises I have made to you have been met and its still not been enough. They weren't for instance balanced with Catholic apology to every point so you had to move these out of an Orthodox position so your colleague could get to work and turn it all into Catholic POV.
You may say you're not the same as another, but the agenda is the same.
Montalban ( talk) 02:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I had a section on Western Councils, and the Council of Teledo.
I had referenced that Michael Whelton had suggested that Toledo's council defied the pope. I'd referenced a particular pope arguing against the inclusion of the filioque.
This was re-edited by Esoglou to remove the point Whelton had made (which I'll re-add later today as I don't have that reference with me at time of writing) and then put who? in an editorial comment IMMEDIATELY BEFORE the sentence that showed Leo arguing against it.
There was nothing historically inaccurate or structurally unsound about the section. The placing of a question IMMEDIATLEY before it's answered made it look clumsy, however.
Adding in Catholic POV to show 'context' that the popes agreed with the sentiment of the filioque however was also not called for.
Montalban ( talk) 21:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Toledo changes the Creed. The popes protest. The changes are continued, and re-affirmed at subsequent local councils. That they're totally disregarding the Pope's protests has absolutely everything to do with Papal Supremacy.
I don't see how to make it any clearer
If one then wants to draw a connection to what I've said about the Ecumencial Councils your question becomes even harder to fathom.
If you accept that I argue "The ECs were called and they formulated material in spite of the pope" is an argument against Papal Supremacy, then your observations that the council of Toledo was also without regard for the Pope would also be an argument against Papal Supremacy.
Your question on this makes no sense to me in the context of your own statements about the argument I'm making Montalban ( talk) 04:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Allegations of "butchering the article" notwithstanding, I think we need to recognize that the "Orthodox objections" section as originally written was a "brain dump" of everything that Montalban could come up with to attack the doctrine of papal primacy. As I've said several times before, it is important to present the Orthodox POV but Wikipedia is not a place for polemics or religious tracts. Laurel Lodged came up with what I thought was a comprehensive outline of the objections in Montalban's section. However, when I tried to use that outline to organize the text in the "Orthodox objections" section, there were a bunch of sections for which it was not immediately obvious where in the outline they belonged. Laurel seems to have run into the same problem as evidenced by the edit summary for this . Instead of sniping at each other with charges of partisanry, we should be looking at these organizational problems and proposing ways to address them. The sections "Opposition arguments from early church history" and "Opposition arguments from Church Councils" are reasonably well structured. The section "Opposition arguments from Orthodox doctrine" is still a jumble. The question before us is: "Does it have to be?". Is it really just a catch-all for a bunch of miscellaneous but unrelated arguments? My hope was that we could look at this remaining jumble and tease out one or more unifying themes that would tie together groups of ideas for the reader. Any thoughts on what these unifying themes might be? My first idea was that "early Church history" and "Church fathers" are not exactly the same thing and that we could put John Chrystostom, Basil the Great and Maximus the Confessor under a section titled "Church fathers". Then we would have to ask where Ignatius goes (i.e. with "early Church history" or "Church fathers"). I confess that I don't know enough to know if Basil the Great and Maximus the Confessor are considered Church fathers; if they are not, then we will have to find a different section title.
I'm very open to ideas that will help improve the article structure and I readily concede that my knowledge is scant and inadequate to the task. However, I strongly object to the suggestion that there should be a section which serves as an "Orthodox sandbox" in which Montalban can write whatever he pleases in whatever order he pleases. I would object to this even in principle but specifically I think that Montalban is not up to the task of writing a well-organized and concise summary of the Orthodox view. He needs help and I think we should all work collegially to figure out how to tame this beast. (By "beast", I mean the large mass of points that Montalban has inserted, NOT Montalban himself.) -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
(text repeated from my comment above) I'm thinking that "early Church history" and "Church fathers" are not exactly the same thing and that we could put John Chrystostom, Basil the Great and Maximus the Confessor under a section titled "Church fathers". Then we would have to ask where Ignatius goes (i.e. with "early Church history" or "Church fathers"). I confess that I don't know enough to know if Basil the Great and Maximus the Confessor are considered Church fathers; if they are not, then we will have to find a different section title. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
In the "Historical development of the doctrine" section, there is an anemic subsection titled "Leo I". Then in the "Objections from Orthodox doctrine" section, there is another section titled "Tome of Leo". It seems reasonable to ask why these two sections could not be merged. The immediate objection is that the "Leo I" section is a fairly NPOV description of what happened. It simply states what Leo I did without passing judgment on whether that was an appropriate and justifiable action or not. (despite claims that this is somehow the "Catholic" section, much of the "Historical development of the doctrine" section consists of fairly NPOV text.) As for the "Tome of Leo" section, it is part of a POV section that is intended to present the objections to the doctrine. I understand that melding it into the "Historical development of the doctrine" section takes away from the impact of the "Objections" section and would require that the entire objections section be melded into "Historical development of the doctrine" section to the extent possible. I'm not sure if that makes sense or not so I figured I'd present the issue for discussion here. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
This section is a rolling disaster. The issues with it are too substantive to try and resolve via tags and edit summaries.
Here's the current text of the section:
"In 809 a council was held at Aix-la-Chapelle by Charlemagne, and from it three divines were sent to confer with the Pope, Leo III, upon the subject. The Pope opposed the insertion of the Filioque on the express ground that the General Councils had forbidden any addition to be made to their formulary… So firmly resolved was the Pope that the clause should not be introduced into the creed that he presented two silver shields to the Confessio in St. Peter’s at Rome, on one of which was engraved the creed in Latin and on the other in Greek, without the addition [1]
Toledo was not an ecumenical council
The forumation of the Creed was at Council - with Popes agreeing that it could only be changed at Ecunemical Council
Toledo, not being such a council introduced the change.
Popes had argued against this. The local council's change was adopted at other local councils, such as that of the Franks
Eventually the popes adopted it. Whether or not they always agreed to the principle contained therein the point is that a local council introduced something in a manner that the popes themselves had not agreed to, and that despite acutal protests at its inclusion (for whatever reason) its use spread until the Popes themselves added it too.
Several things about that a) the popes protesting was not a means of stopping its spread b) they went back on their own agreement -re: change only by ecumenical Council - arguably, from the Catholic POV they had the power to do so. But that's not my concern. Mine is that they were unable to stop local coucils adding the formula. Therefore it's totally irrelevant to whether Popes had always agreed with the content. It's like with Galileo - he was never prevented from teaching that we revovle around the sun, but from teaching AT ALL. He went against a ban on teaching and was excommunicated. Anti-Catholics argue that he was excommunicated for teaching 'the truth' about the earth and the sun, but this is not so. He defied the church by teaching without permission. Here with Toledo they're teaching something that the Popes are asking them not to teach. Montalban ( talk) 02:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
"It was not till 1014 that for the first time the interpolated creed was used at mass with the sanction of the Pope. In that year Benedict VIII. acceded to the urgent request of Henry II. of Germany and so the papal authority was forced to yield, and the silver shields have disappeared from St. Peter's." [2]
What is the point that we are trying to make here? In the case of most of the other sections on ecumenical councils, the point seems to be that ecumenical councils have felt free to convene without the approval of the pope or even against his express wishes, to ignore papal pronouncements or even to anathematize popes. But what are we trying to say about the Council of Toledo that is relevant to the doctrine of papal primacy? Did it explicitly go against the wishes of one or more popes? The current text seems to suggest that a non-ecumenical council changed the Nicene Creed despite the fact that popes had agreed to not change it except at an ecumenical council. 200 years later, a pope rejected the change. Another 200 years later, a pope sanctioned the use of the filioque. What does all this say about the primacy of the pope and which secondary source asserts it?
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 02:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Toledo changed the wording despite the Popes saying that this shouldn't be the way EXCEPT by Ecumenical council
Having changed the wording the popes protested against the changes being made
Instead of accepting the Pope's protest the changed wording spread to other councils
Eventually the popes accepted this. Montalban ( talk) 02:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I never made the association between Toledo and the ECs that you're making. I don't think you understand the point still, so perhpas it is unclear. I had thought that the quote from Phillip Schaff of the Popes finally surerendering to the ineventiable was clear enough
True the ECs were called for without the Pope, or despite the pope etc. But I don't make any claim regarding Toledo and that way. What I do claim is that following its ruling the Popes objected to the change.
As for pickiness, again you've not noticed the barrage of charges I've had to endure from your colleague - most of them based on not undertanding the concepts, such as 'straw-man', etc. It's too rich to try taking a moral high ground in that atmosphere. Montalban ( talk) 04:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your suggestion. I believe that's what it already says, givent he quote by Schaff and the lead in regarding "Western Councils" in general. However I will think about re-wording it, but it'll be longer Montalban ( talk) 05:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Montalban ( talk) 05:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe local councils as 'grass-roots' - and in fact never did so. In an age of monarchy I don't think for instance that they'd have been held without the permission/involvement of the local blue-bloods. Schaff is explicit in saying the pope's caved in... forced to yield seems quite clear on this.
However, I have also given it a re-write regarding your suggestion earlier (though I used my words not yours which was too long), let me know what you think.
Perhaps you can do the alternative and tell me what you think the Pope was doing when after the several councils added it he was forced to yield. Can you tell me how the absolute non-exercise of any power is proof that he had this power? Montalban ( talk) 10:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I understand you'd think that. Even when Schaff explicitly says the pope backed down, you don't see it. I can't do any more. I suggest you look to other editors to have a look at this. You has re-worked in your own mind my comments to a 'grass-roots' movement which I never said, nor implied. I cannot help with your own perceptions any further on this.
Also, Whelton says the same thing, in the lead up to that I gave a reference and despite that still you ask for 'reliable sources'. You have Schaff and Whelton! Montalban ( talk) 21:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Montalban, I see you have reverted again without cooperatively responding to the citation requests. Do you agree that I bring this question to the noticeboard along with your renewed reverting on the papal infallibility article? The views expressed on the noticeboard when I first raised the question there seemed to have stopped your reverting on that other article, but you have now returned to your reverting habit. Esoglou ( talk) 22:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I've started reviewing the article for citation requests. I found a citation request for this sentence "Early belief in the Church is that Jesus granted Peter jurisdiction over the Church". I think this statement is problematic because it doesn't present any of the nuances of the assertion. We need to at least make mention of the fact that there is more than one POV in t his regard. I'm not sure how to rewrite this sentence so I figured I'd ask other editors for help. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 02:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Montalban ( talk) 04:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Another citation request for this sentence: "In this period Michael I Cerularius tried to bolster his position as the Patriarch of Constantinople, seeming to set himself up as a rival of Pope Leo IX, as the Popes previously had objected to calling Constantinople a patriarchate."
It's possibly true that Michael Cerulariuis "tried to bolster his position as the Patriarch of Constantinople" although I don't quite get the "seeming to set himself up as a rival of Pope Leo IX". I read somewhere that Michael was arrogant, peremptory and self-confident but I didn't really get that he was out to set himself as a "rival to Pope Leo IX". This sounds a bit POV to me. I also wonder about the "Popes previously had objected to calling Constantinople a patriarchate." I thought that the issue was that the Popes argued that Constantinople should not be raised above Antioch and Alexandria and "second only to Rome". That's not the same thing as "objecting to calling Constantinople a patriarchate". Thoughts, anyone? --
Pseudo-Richard (
talk)
03:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
My article leads in with a reference by Whelton. It backs the notion that the inclusion of the filioque was in defiance of the Pope's wishes.
Schaff explicitly says this was a back-down by the pope. Some have said that they still don't see it, and have also added in interpretations I have never made, such as a 'grass-roots' movement - I don't know what they're reading.
Another reference points to another pope - John VIII, thus making popes (plural) (him + Leo) despite the near endless objections from one to show more than one pope. The information is already there in the article!!! Montalban ( talk) 22:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, that's besides the point of your original objection - you've simply not acknowledged your mistake and switched to a different attack. Before you were demadning to know which popes argued this. I evidenced this. It is a compeletly different matter that you don't agree with that evidence to saying it doesn't exist!
My evidence is explicit in mentioning objections from two popes. I didn't argue that John VIII was born at the time of Toledo - and if you read the article you'd note that it talks of subsequent local councils and subsequent objections/protests. If you read all the article without having in mind to find new faults in it, your questions might be answered by it.
Remember you disagreeing with the evidence doesn't mean it's not there. Montalban ( talk) 22:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Although I have changed it, he wasn't objecting simply to a matter of tense, but to the plural for popes. However I had changed this yesterday (local time) and he'd changed the text so I had actually already addressed this anyway before he changed it. I even commented that I had based on YOUR suggestion though not using your suggested phrasing, because I thought it too long.
Obviously these are super-important issues of course :-) Apparently the errors of formatting, and citations needed in the first part of the article aren't. Montalban ( talk) 00:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
By formatting errors I mean words run together such as under The Council of Jerusalem whetherGentiles is given as a word. I could of course fix it myself having found it, but I just wished to keep it as an example.
There are others. They only exist between Opposition arguments from early church history and Opposition arguments from Church Councils
It could be of course that the words aren't actually run together and it's my software interpreting them as such, but they only happened in the last week or so Montalban ( talk) 04:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
While a quick scan of the diff between Esoglou's last edit and LoveMonkey's reversion suggests that there are issues with Esoglou's text, it also shows that LoveMonkey's preferred version has its problems as well. I think we are better off starting with Esoglou's text and fixing the problems rather than a wholesale reversion of his recent edits. So, I have undone LoveMonkey's reversion. Rather than continue to edit war, it would be better if LoveMonkey could present here the issues that he sees with Esoglou's edits so that we can discuss them and attempt to address them. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 02:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Who gets the last word? RCC or EOC?
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
In the article is footnote [3] which says Ireneus, Adversus haereses, III, 3, 2: PG 7848. Wrote Cajetano de Fulgure: "Potentiorem autem principalitatem Romanae Ecclesiae tribuit, non propter Urbis amplitudinem, aut civitatis imperium, sed propterea quod illa principium, basis, ac veluti centrum est Ecclesiasticae unitatis; in qua velut in communi omnium gentium thesauro depositum Apostolicae traditionis conservatur". Cajetano De Fulgore, Institutiones theologicae, tomus I, Neapoli 1827, p. 325.
Is there any rule against citing (without translation) another language in an English language article? Montalban ( talk) 04:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Who do I ask for a translation? Montalban ( talk) 08:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
If it's against the rules, why do I need to ask people to translate it? Montalban ( talk) 09:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I missed that Montalban ( talk) 21:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, this is what I got from Google translate:
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 23:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Who are the munus petrinum?
The article starts with is the munus petrinum who founded the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff as Successor of the Prince of the Apostles (Primus Apostolus) and Vicar of Christ... Montalban ( talk) 00:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you looking into re-writing any of it? I know you seem eager to point out problems with one section. Montalban ( talk) 08:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The article also states a "Classic Roman Catholic tradition..." and cites the Greek Orthodox Church's idea of what Catholics believe. Aside from this incident of 'straw-man' ;-) not being a subject of protest by some editors I find it odd that the Catholic argument isn't found in a Catholic site.
Furthermore that GOARCH site simply itself quotes someone, with a footnote [10] that seems to be a dead link Montalban ( talk) 00:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. It was an attempt to highlight the selective application of a rule of 'straw-man'
Montalban (
talk)
21:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
You lay these charges all the time, but I'm not totally convinced you know their meaning - like the supposed 'straw-man' before.
What is POV is the highly selective nature of laying these accusations, or perhaps I'm being unfair and you didn't notice all these errors in the article BEFORE I added my bit?
I haven't seen you racing to add citations to the first part of the article nor alternatively to demand from the editors who wrote it that that they do so Montalban ( talk) 08:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
No, this comment is not more about how the article is overly weighted towards the Orthodox POV (although it certainly is that). I wanted to point out that there have been debates and disputes about papal primacy even within the Catholic Church and those issues have been given short shrift so that this article focuses almost exclusively on the East-West Schism rather than about the entire topic of primacy. (NB: even the sections other than the "Orthodox Christian arguments against papal primacy" section suffer from this overweighting)
Specifically, I note that there is no mention of Conciliarism or Americanism (heresy). Admittedly, both have been branded as heretical but they nonetheless point to movements within the Catholic Church to assert the power of the bishops relative to the Pope. Similarly, there is only a brief mention of Ultramontanism. A more detailed exposition of that topic would be helpful. Finally, the section on Vatican II relies too much on church jargon and gobbledygook. It doesn't state clearly and simply enough that the issue was that Vatican I was seen as giving the Pope too much power and that Vatican II was an attempt to shift power away from the Pope and to the bishops without denying the ultimate authority of the Pope. There is no mention of the encouragement to the bishops to form national and regional conferences (but NOT councils!). Nor is there any mention of the shift of power back to the Pope under the reigns of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
I don't have time to work on these topics this morning but I wanted to point them out for all to consider.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Another editor said
You may have forgotten your ignoring the Oriental Orthodox
Unfortunately, not only is this yet another charge by him of me doing something wrong, I'd already addressed this mistake of his earlier by pointing out that if one puts "Orthodox Church" into Wiki's search, you get directed to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Therefore Wiki's own standard is that where "Orthodox Church" is mentioned it is synonymous with the EOC.
There's actually been a continual barrage of negative criticism of all manner of charges made when they have in fact been mistakes; such as the use of (Sic), what a straw-man is, what part of the article is POV, who actually is interpreting, etc.. This is unfortunately simply a repeat of a mistake. Montalban ( talk) 07:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
In the "Doctrine as the result of development" section, the text read "In this view, too much should not be read into the First Epistle of Clement...". Someone has distorted this sentence from one that presents a positive assertion of the doctrine to one that minimizes the value of the evidence. While we must recognize the existence of opposing POVs and present them, it is silly and awkward to make the first presentation of an idea be a negative assertion. The more appropriate way to present the diversity of opinion is to say "Some assert A while others minimize the relevance or importance of A." I have rewritten the text to indicate that "some proponents" assert A (First Letter of Clement) and B (epistle of Ignatius to the Romans). However, in my ignorance, I am not able to ground these assertions in secondary sources. (i.e. who exactly points to the First Epistle of Clement or the epistle of Ignatius to the Romans?) Neither am I able to ground the objections to these assertions in secondary sources. (once again, who exactly thinks that these letters are not that significant? what is their argument against their importance?) If other editors could help in finding those secondary sources, the assistance would be much appreciated.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I have moved large sections of the "Orthodox Christian arguments against..." section into Laurel Lodged's outline. I would still like to discuss whether it is better to use Laurel's outline or just meld the objections in line with the "Historical development" section. However, pending a resolution of that question, it seems reasonable to start melding Montalban's prodigious but rather disorganized effort into Laurel's much more concise and systematic outline. So I have been bold and started this task. I did the easy part first which was to move the material related to the early church, the ecumenical councils and the western councils into the outline. The remaining material is not so easy to organize and so I figured I'd initiate a discussion here first before proceeding much further. I'd like to hear what other editors think about Laurel's outline and how best to fit Montalban's text into it.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 03:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've already written a couple rather lengthy expositions on the rationale for using secondary sources rather than primary sources and the second time that I did so, I was criticized for being pedantic so I won't repeat what has already been said a couple of different times. I will simply point out that much of Montalban's text remains couched as assertions of fact rather than presentations of opinions (POVs). Moreover, the sources provided are often primary sources or, when secondary sources are provided, the article text is still couched as an assertion of fact rather than the opinion of the secondary source. Without access to the actual text of the secondary source, I am not able to reword the article text into the voice of the source and thus we wind up with Wikipedia making the assertion rather than simply reporting that the source made the assertion.
I did make a bold leap and made this which assumes that the original sentence accurately presents Srawley's position. It would be better if the editor who has actually seen the source would make the appropriate edits to the article text so as to put the opinions into the voice of the source.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 03:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Srawley is a good source. He notes "The individual churches represent locally the universal Church. As Jesus Christ is the Head of the universal Church, so is the bishop the head of the local Church." (page 34, Vol. 1)
Why do you not think that the first section is POV? It presents the Catholic view - the development of Primacy. Furthermore, I thought your beef was the use of Primary Sources (alone). If another writer uses a primary source then why can't it be used in the article?
Whelton might say "Augustine argues in xxx that yyy (position) is maintained" and then quote him to show it. I had originally written something to the effect that many Church Fathers accepted the keys have been given to other Apostles.
Laurel re-worded it as Such an interpretation, it is claimed,[61] has been accepted by many Church Fathers
And then I added the source.
It seems to me at least that she was happy to have someone else making the claim. You wanted the source, and I added that. Now you don't like the sources being used????
I'm assuming that you're the editor of these, but sentences now run together such as At the Sixth Ecumenical Council Pope HonoriusandPatriarch Sergius were declared heretics and the heading Fifth Ecumenical Council= now appears, with the '=' sign
Montalban ( talk) 07:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 09:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I just spoke of one who says that for Ignatius each church is headed by a bishop under Jesus (I quoted Srawley)
The other statement re: western councils is fair and I will look up my sources Montalban ( talk) 10:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The line in the article The general reaction of the see of Rome to the activities of the emperors of Constantinople in church matters and to the advancement of the bishop of the new capital, led the popes to define their ecclesial position more sharply is wholly inaccurate as there are no "Emperors of Constantinople". At best one can say that they were Emperors in Constantinople Montalban ( talk) 23:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Well Pseudo-Richard, by moving stuff from an "Orthodox" section you've now allowed another editor (banned from editing Orthodox stuff) open season on editing material that I had placed there.
You two should be congratulated for butchering the article.
The other editor can now 'contextualise' everything to the Catholic POV
Montalban ( talk) 11:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I have to say it's clear there has been a Catholic tag team going on. Why is Esoglou editing Orthodox commentary when he shouldn't be doing any such thing? And where's the explanation for these mass edits? -- Taiwan boi ( talk) 14:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Re Esoglou, see my response in the section "Yet another religious war" below. I am not clear what you are referring to as "mass edits". Could you clarify what you mean? -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Eusebius says that Victor was rebuked and backed down Montalban ( talk) 22:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Once again we have an issue on a contentious subject which is being warred over by promoters of opposing theologies, resulting in a massively over large and complicated article which is nothing more than a battleground of edits. This is a mockery of what editing a Wikipedia article is supposed to be. This is the latest in a trail of articles which have been wrecked in this way, by the same parties.-- Taiwan boi ( talk) 14:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
You get lumped in because all you do is support him and offer only the same criticisms. Aside from the 'good cop/bad cop' act it's for the same ends.
Such as regarding POV – which you're more than happy to support another 'contextualising' every objection by a further Catholic response… turning the article into a Catholic Q&A. You allowed this by removing items from an Orthodox section, and he's gone to work adding his church's POV. It's not meant to be a Catholic blog. There's room for many view points, but as with other articles you seem to support Esoglou's viewpoint that an article must contain
You make no comment on absolutely pointless edits. Take for example I had a sentence saying that several popes objected to Toledo's inclusion of the filioque. I then, in the very next sentence gave an example of such a pope. In between these two sentences your colleague added the editorial comment who? between the statement making a point, and the evidence showing it. He thus enters edits into texts that are actually answered by the text.
Take your comment below about dumping everything I could think of.
This is false for several reasons 1) I removed argument, such as from Athanasius, therefore there is more argument I had used 2) I had more argument aside from this still, but have not introduced it at any stage 3) If the argument is legitimate concern of the Orthodox church then it's not just what I personally have come up with
Apparently you now believe that a church can't have legitimate objections to a Catholic doctrine after-all.
Furthermore you have butchered the article. Both in moving material into the strange format it's in now and in ruining the format of that which you've moved anyway – which you blame on faulty soft-ware, but you've not remedied it, nor stopped doing it. You've contributed to the article looking far worse than it did originally Montalban ( talk) 22:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I accept you won't see the first section as Catholic POV. Despite it presenting for the most part poorly structured under-referenced material to support the Catholic position on the development of primacy. I got that already.
You now also seem to wish to blame the formatting errors on others for stopping you. I don't know of anyone who's complained about you fixing an error in format. Let me know who has, and I'll join you in a chorus of disapproval.
I had made the categories which you now ask for - and when asked for secondary sources started to provide these. All was running smoothly. You were happy to push quotes into refs. It reduced the size of the article. Despite the fact I removed information - such as from Athanasius, and an over-long conclusion these compromises were not enough. Others here suggested that your complaints weren't justified and I still went on ahead in 'good faith'.
All the compromises I have made to you have been met and its still not been enough. They weren't for instance balanced with Catholic apology to every point so you had to move these out of an Orthodox position so your colleague could get to work and turn it all into Catholic POV.
You may say you're not the same as another, but the agenda is the same.
Montalban ( talk) 02:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I had a section on Western Councils, and the Council of Teledo.
I had referenced that Michael Whelton had suggested that Toledo's council defied the pope. I'd referenced a particular pope arguing against the inclusion of the filioque.
This was re-edited by Esoglou to remove the point Whelton had made (which I'll re-add later today as I don't have that reference with me at time of writing) and then put who? in an editorial comment IMMEDIATELY BEFORE the sentence that showed Leo arguing against it.
There was nothing historically inaccurate or structurally unsound about the section. The placing of a question IMMEDIATLEY before it's answered made it look clumsy, however.
Adding in Catholic POV to show 'context' that the popes agreed with the sentiment of the filioque however was also not called for.
Montalban ( talk) 21:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Toledo changes the Creed. The popes protest. The changes are continued, and re-affirmed at subsequent local councils. That they're totally disregarding the Pope's protests has absolutely everything to do with Papal Supremacy.
I don't see how to make it any clearer
If one then wants to draw a connection to what I've said about the Ecumencial Councils your question becomes even harder to fathom.
If you accept that I argue "The ECs were called and they formulated material in spite of the pope" is an argument against Papal Supremacy, then your observations that the council of Toledo was also without regard for the Pope would also be an argument against Papal Supremacy.
Your question on this makes no sense to me in the context of your own statements about the argument I'm making Montalban ( talk) 04:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Allegations of "butchering the article" notwithstanding, I think we need to recognize that the "Orthodox objections" section as originally written was a "brain dump" of everything that Montalban could come up with to attack the doctrine of papal primacy. As I've said several times before, it is important to present the Orthodox POV but Wikipedia is not a place for polemics or religious tracts. Laurel Lodged came up with what I thought was a comprehensive outline of the objections in Montalban's section. However, when I tried to use that outline to organize the text in the "Orthodox objections" section, there were a bunch of sections for which it was not immediately obvious where in the outline they belonged. Laurel seems to have run into the same problem as evidenced by the edit summary for this . Instead of sniping at each other with charges of partisanry, we should be looking at these organizational problems and proposing ways to address them. The sections "Opposition arguments from early church history" and "Opposition arguments from Church Councils" are reasonably well structured. The section "Opposition arguments from Orthodox doctrine" is still a jumble. The question before us is: "Does it have to be?". Is it really just a catch-all for a bunch of miscellaneous but unrelated arguments? My hope was that we could look at this remaining jumble and tease out one or more unifying themes that would tie together groups of ideas for the reader. Any thoughts on what these unifying themes might be? My first idea was that "early Church history" and "Church fathers" are not exactly the same thing and that we could put John Chrystostom, Basil the Great and Maximus the Confessor under a section titled "Church fathers". Then we would have to ask where Ignatius goes (i.e. with "early Church history" or "Church fathers"). I confess that I don't know enough to know if Basil the Great and Maximus the Confessor are considered Church fathers; if they are not, then we will have to find a different section title.
I'm very open to ideas that will help improve the article structure and I readily concede that my knowledge is scant and inadequate to the task. However, I strongly object to the suggestion that there should be a section which serves as an "Orthodox sandbox" in which Montalban can write whatever he pleases in whatever order he pleases. I would object to this even in principle but specifically I think that Montalban is not up to the task of writing a well-organized and concise summary of the Orthodox view. He needs help and I think we should all work collegially to figure out how to tame this beast. (By "beast", I mean the large mass of points that Montalban has inserted, NOT Montalban himself.) -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
(text repeated from my comment above) I'm thinking that "early Church history" and "Church fathers" are not exactly the same thing and that we could put John Chrystostom, Basil the Great and Maximus the Confessor under a section titled "Church fathers". Then we would have to ask where Ignatius goes (i.e. with "early Church history" or "Church fathers"). I confess that I don't know enough to know if Basil the Great and Maximus the Confessor are considered Church fathers; if they are not, then we will have to find a different section title. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
In the "Historical development of the doctrine" section, there is an anemic subsection titled "Leo I". Then in the "Objections from Orthodox doctrine" section, there is another section titled "Tome of Leo". It seems reasonable to ask why these two sections could not be merged. The immediate objection is that the "Leo I" section is a fairly NPOV description of what happened. It simply states what Leo I did without passing judgment on whether that was an appropriate and justifiable action or not. (despite claims that this is somehow the "Catholic" section, much of the "Historical development of the doctrine" section consists of fairly NPOV text.) As for the "Tome of Leo" section, it is part of a POV section that is intended to present the objections to the doctrine. I understand that melding it into the "Historical development of the doctrine" section takes away from the impact of the "Objections" section and would require that the entire objections section be melded into "Historical development of the doctrine" section to the extent possible. I'm not sure if that makes sense or not so I figured I'd present the issue for discussion here. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
This section is a rolling disaster. The issues with it are too substantive to try and resolve via tags and edit summaries.
Here's the current text of the section:
"In 809 a council was held at Aix-la-Chapelle by Charlemagne, and from it three divines were sent to confer with the Pope, Leo III, upon the subject. The Pope opposed the insertion of the Filioque on the express ground that the General Councils had forbidden any addition to be made to their formulary… So firmly resolved was the Pope that the clause should not be introduced into the creed that he presented two silver shields to the Confessio in St. Peter’s at Rome, on one of which was engraved the creed in Latin and on the other in Greek, without the addition [1]
Toledo was not an ecumenical council
The forumation of the Creed was at Council - with Popes agreeing that it could only be changed at Ecunemical Council
Toledo, not being such a council introduced the change.
Popes had argued against this. The local council's change was adopted at other local councils, such as that of the Franks
Eventually the popes adopted it. Whether or not they always agreed to the principle contained therein the point is that a local council introduced something in a manner that the popes themselves had not agreed to, and that despite acutal protests at its inclusion (for whatever reason) its use spread until the Popes themselves added it too.
Several things about that a) the popes protesting was not a means of stopping its spread b) they went back on their own agreement -re: change only by ecumenical Council - arguably, from the Catholic POV they had the power to do so. But that's not my concern. Mine is that they were unable to stop local coucils adding the formula. Therefore it's totally irrelevant to whether Popes had always agreed with the content. It's like with Galileo - he was never prevented from teaching that we revovle around the sun, but from teaching AT ALL. He went against a ban on teaching and was excommunicated. Anti-Catholics argue that he was excommunicated for teaching 'the truth' about the earth and the sun, but this is not so. He defied the church by teaching without permission. Here with Toledo they're teaching something that the Popes are asking them not to teach. Montalban ( talk) 02:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
"It was not till 1014 that for the first time the interpolated creed was used at mass with the sanction of the Pope. In that year Benedict VIII. acceded to the urgent request of Henry II. of Germany and so the papal authority was forced to yield, and the silver shields have disappeared from St. Peter's." [2]
What is the point that we are trying to make here? In the case of most of the other sections on ecumenical councils, the point seems to be that ecumenical councils have felt free to convene without the approval of the pope or even against his express wishes, to ignore papal pronouncements or even to anathematize popes. But what are we trying to say about the Council of Toledo that is relevant to the doctrine of papal primacy? Did it explicitly go against the wishes of one or more popes? The current text seems to suggest that a non-ecumenical council changed the Nicene Creed despite the fact that popes had agreed to not change it except at an ecumenical council. 200 years later, a pope rejected the change. Another 200 years later, a pope sanctioned the use of the filioque. What does all this say about the primacy of the pope and which secondary source asserts it?
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 02:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Toledo changed the wording despite the Popes saying that this shouldn't be the way EXCEPT by Ecumenical council
Having changed the wording the popes protested against the changes being made
Instead of accepting the Pope's protest the changed wording spread to other councils
Eventually the popes accepted this. Montalban ( talk) 02:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I never made the association between Toledo and the ECs that you're making. I don't think you understand the point still, so perhpas it is unclear. I had thought that the quote from Phillip Schaff of the Popes finally surerendering to the ineventiable was clear enough
True the ECs were called for without the Pope, or despite the pope etc. But I don't make any claim regarding Toledo and that way. What I do claim is that following its ruling the Popes objected to the change.
As for pickiness, again you've not noticed the barrage of charges I've had to endure from your colleague - most of them based on not undertanding the concepts, such as 'straw-man', etc. It's too rich to try taking a moral high ground in that atmosphere. Montalban ( talk) 04:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your suggestion. I believe that's what it already says, givent he quote by Schaff and the lead in regarding "Western Councils" in general. However I will think about re-wording it, but it'll be longer Montalban ( talk) 05:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Montalban ( talk) 05:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe local councils as 'grass-roots' - and in fact never did so. In an age of monarchy I don't think for instance that they'd have been held without the permission/involvement of the local blue-bloods. Schaff is explicit in saying the pope's caved in... forced to yield seems quite clear on this.
However, I have also given it a re-write regarding your suggestion earlier (though I used my words not yours which was too long), let me know what you think.
Perhaps you can do the alternative and tell me what you think the Pope was doing when after the several councils added it he was forced to yield. Can you tell me how the absolute non-exercise of any power is proof that he had this power? Montalban ( talk) 10:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I understand you'd think that. Even when Schaff explicitly says the pope backed down, you don't see it. I can't do any more. I suggest you look to other editors to have a look at this. You has re-worked in your own mind my comments to a 'grass-roots' movement which I never said, nor implied. I cannot help with your own perceptions any further on this.
Also, Whelton says the same thing, in the lead up to that I gave a reference and despite that still you ask for 'reliable sources'. You have Schaff and Whelton! Montalban ( talk) 21:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Montalban, I see you have reverted again without cooperatively responding to the citation requests. Do you agree that I bring this question to the noticeboard along with your renewed reverting on the papal infallibility article? The views expressed on the noticeboard when I first raised the question there seemed to have stopped your reverting on that other article, but you have now returned to your reverting habit. Esoglou ( talk) 22:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I've started reviewing the article for citation requests. I found a citation request for this sentence "Early belief in the Church is that Jesus granted Peter jurisdiction over the Church". I think this statement is problematic because it doesn't present any of the nuances of the assertion. We need to at least make mention of the fact that there is more than one POV in t his regard. I'm not sure how to rewrite this sentence so I figured I'd ask other editors for help. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 02:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Montalban ( talk) 04:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Another citation request for this sentence: "In this period Michael I Cerularius tried to bolster his position as the Patriarch of Constantinople, seeming to set himself up as a rival of Pope Leo IX, as the Popes previously had objected to calling Constantinople a patriarchate."
It's possibly true that Michael Cerulariuis "tried to bolster his position as the Patriarch of Constantinople" although I don't quite get the "seeming to set himself up as a rival of Pope Leo IX". I read somewhere that Michael was arrogant, peremptory and self-confident but I didn't really get that he was out to set himself as a "rival to Pope Leo IX". This sounds a bit POV to me. I also wonder about the "Popes previously had objected to calling Constantinople a patriarchate." I thought that the issue was that the Popes argued that Constantinople should not be raised above Antioch and Alexandria and "second only to Rome". That's not the same thing as "objecting to calling Constantinople a patriarchate". Thoughts, anyone? --
Pseudo-Richard (
talk)
03:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
My article leads in with a reference by Whelton. It backs the notion that the inclusion of the filioque was in defiance of the Pope's wishes.
Schaff explicitly says this was a back-down by the pope. Some have said that they still don't see it, and have also added in interpretations I have never made, such as a 'grass-roots' movement - I don't know what they're reading.
Another reference points to another pope - John VIII, thus making popes (plural) (him + Leo) despite the near endless objections from one to show more than one pope. The information is already there in the article!!! Montalban ( talk) 22:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, that's besides the point of your original objection - you've simply not acknowledged your mistake and switched to a different attack. Before you were demadning to know which popes argued this. I evidenced this. It is a compeletly different matter that you don't agree with that evidence to saying it doesn't exist!
My evidence is explicit in mentioning objections from two popes. I didn't argue that John VIII was born at the time of Toledo - and if you read the article you'd note that it talks of subsequent local councils and subsequent objections/protests. If you read all the article without having in mind to find new faults in it, your questions might be answered by it.
Remember you disagreeing with the evidence doesn't mean it's not there. Montalban ( talk) 22:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Although I have changed it, he wasn't objecting simply to a matter of tense, but to the plural for popes. However I had changed this yesterday (local time) and he'd changed the text so I had actually already addressed this anyway before he changed it. I even commented that I had based on YOUR suggestion though not using your suggested phrasing, because I thought it too long.
Obviously these are super-important issues of course :-) Apparently the errors of formatting, and citations needed in the first part of the article aren't. Montalban ( talk) 00:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
By formatting errors I mean words run together such as under The Council of Jerusalem whetherGentiles is given as a word. I could of course fix it myself having found it, but I just wished to keep it as an example.
There are others. They only exist between Opposition arguments from early church history and Opposition arguments from Church Councils
It could be of course that the words aren't actually run together and it's my software interpreting them as such, but they only happened in the last week or so Montalban ( talk) 04:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
While a quick scan of the diff between Esoglou's last edit and LoveMonkey's reversion suggests that there are issues with Esoglou's text, it also shows that LoveMonkey's preferred version has its problems as well. I think we are better off starting with Esoglou's text and fixing the problems rather than a wholesale reversion of his recent edits. So, I have undone LoveMonkey's reversion. Rather than continue to edit war, it would be better if LoveMonkey could present here the issues that he sees with Esoglou's edits so that we can discuss them and attempt to address them. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 02:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Who gets the last word? RCC or EOC?