Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 53

Church = she or it?
Is it against MOS guidelines to refer to the Church as "she"? This is how she refers to herself but I am unsure if it would comply with Wikipedia standards. I reverted a recent edit by Hazhk in this regard, he changed "she" (referring to the Church) to "the papacy" but should it actually read "it" instead? Elizium23 (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that there is something in the the MOS specfically about this and other "inhouse" style conventions such as referring to God as "He" (against the MOS except in direct quotations) instead of "he". Anglicanus (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the following: Pronouns for figures of veneration are not capitalized, even if capitalized in a religion's scriptures. but I can't find even an allusion to a rule against my proposition. Can you? Elizium23 (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As I recall I once saw it some time ago but finding it again is another matter. Anglicanus (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It can certainly be argued that consistency and current consensus play a large role in the status quo as "it". However, I am slightly offended by this usage, as it reflects a poor understanding of the Church's theology of herself, often held by outsiders, but recently held by even many Catholics due to the faulty English translation of the Mass which was circulated for 40 years. By the provisions of Liturgiam Authenticam the accurate representation of the Church as female was restored in the liturgy, and I feel that this understanding of the Church as Bride of Christ deserves a prominent mention in this particular article, and I am especially dismayed that neither the terms "bride" nor "groom" appear anywhere within it! I would be bold and add it myself but I am essentially a vandalism fighter and not much of a content writer. But this is my plea to content contributors here: if the Church cannot be referred to as "she" in articles then some articles should at least explain how she understands herself in relation to Christ the Bridegroom. Elizium23 (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I fear that referring to the Church in Wikipedia articles as "she" would stir up more controversy (about alleged POV) than it is worth. Esoglou (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Not all Catholics are Roman
The Universal Catholic Church is made up of 23 autonomous Churches, the Roman Catholic Church (Latin Catholic) being the largest, with 22 other Eastern Churches in Communion with it (see Eastern Catholic Churches). Therefore the first title of the article "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church" is erroneous. It would be more appropriate to write "Catholic Church is a Communion of 23 Churches, the largest of which being the Roman Catholic Church." Julianhayda (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Julianhayda 6:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. As has been explained numerous times before now the (Roman) Catholic Church consists of the Latin church and the various Eastern Catholic churches. The eastern churches are also "Roman Catholic" churches. There is a very good article on all of this at Roman Catholic (term). Anglicanus (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And you can also stop incorrectly removing sourced and factually accurate information from that article as well as incorrectly redirecting other articles to Latin Church. Eastern Catholics are also members of the Roman Catholic Church. Anglicanus (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are just some sources I have found offhand, though I know for sure of sources by the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, the Pontifical Oriental Institute, and my father's library (Pavlo Hayda) among others which beg to differ. A Church is labeled by the Tradition which it follows, i.e. Roman Catholics follow the Tradition of Rome, Byzantine Catholics follow the Tradition of Byzantium, Antiochians Antioch, and Alexandirans Alexandria, etc. Just because the First among equals is seated in Rome does not man everybody who aknowledges him is Roman, much like Roman Catholics aren't and weren't before 1054, Greek-Catholics.    Julianhayda (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)julianhayda
 * Your sources only prove that usage varies. Yes, it is common for Eastern Catholics to use it this way. In fact it is common for Latin Catholics to use the term to refer to the whole communion of Churches. Elizium23 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I'll give it to you that most members of the Latin Church are unaware of what that term means, and as such usage varies. But since there is disagreement (possibly due to ignorance), why even have it in the very first line of the article? Wouldn't it be beneficial for most Catholics to know that there are 23 Catholic Churches, and perhaps the usage of that term does not apply to everybody? Are you suggesting that institutions such as the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, the Pontifical Oriental Institute, St. Basil Seminary, and the Ukrainian Catholic University which insist on their non-Romaness, all-the-while recognizing the Pope of Rome as the successor of Peter, have no idea what they're talking about? How about the first line of the Eastern Catholic Code of Canons, which states that the Eastern Churches are separate from the Latin Church? "Canon 1 - The canons of this Code affect all and solely the Eastern Catholic Churches, unless, with regard to relations with the Latin Church, it is expressly stated otherwise." Is not Latin and Roman synonymous? I know there's a consensus on this on the Roman Catholic (term) talk page. Julianhayda (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Is not Latin and Roman synonymous?". No. Again, 'Catholic Church' and 'Roman Catholic Church' are synonymous. This has already been discussed extensively and doesn't need to be tested again. -- Hazhk Talk to me 23:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will add, since I don't mean to be rude by being blunt, that I don't think any clarification is needed in the lead. Some of the Eastern Churches may choose to ignore their Roman aspect, but we shouldn't involve misconceptions in the lead. The fact is the Catholic hierarchy always take 'Roman Catholic' to mean the whole Church. Again, all of this has been discussed (I've just read the archives) and debated and there's a consensus to use 'Roman Catholic', not as an official name (for the reasons you mention), but as a synonymous name in the lead. -- Hazhk Talk to me 23:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide a link to the archives? Like I said, I have known my entire life, from my studies, articles, books, my father, family friends (among which, bishops and professors), etc., that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonymous, and I have provided at least five links above to demonstrate that and another twenty if you'd like. I will use an example. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was signed into union with the Roman See at the Union of Brest in 1596. The text of the union in the opening line is described as "Articles Concerning Union With The Roman Church." That's **Union, not acquisition. Now, when an institution, ecclesial or civil, enters into a union, say, the European Union; simply because France recognizes Belgium as an ally, there exist no borders between the two countries, the countries coexist with different cultures and different governments, yet the union's capital is in Brussels does not mean that every Frenchman is automatically Belgian. I see no difference in this case.Julianhayda (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's complicated, Julian. Eastern Catholics like me don't refer to ourselves as Roman Catholics unless we're speaking in Arabic, when the term "Rum" (Roman) implies "Byzantine". For some Westerners, however, the term "Roman Catholic Church" is used synonymously with "Catholic Church". If you scan through the archives for this talk page you will find plenty of debate back and forth on the title and lead sentence. Most of us would rather not open up that debate again; it's not a productive use of our editing time. Majoreditor (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a Wikipedia article on Roman Catholic (term) and the several different senses in which the term "Roman Catholic" is used. Julian's comment "A Church is labeled by the Tradition which it follows, i.e. Roman Catholics follow the Tradition of Rome, Byzantine Catholics follow the Tradition of Byzantium, Antiochians Antioch, and Alexandirans Alexandria, etc." corresponds to the meaning covered in that article's section on "Roman Catholic" and "Roman-Rite Catholic".  In that sense, Milanese/Ambrosian Catholics are not Roman Catholics.  However, since they recognize the See of Rome as the centre of reference for the whole Catholic Church, themselves included, they are also and quite normally referred to as Roman Catholics.  Esoglou (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because a custom is common and may be found in some publications doesn't make it correct. Although it is a common custom for Eastern Catholics to refer to the Latin Church as the "Roman Catholic Church" it is still an incorrect use regardless of who does it ~ even eminent Eastern Catholic bishops. Instead of calling them "Roman Catholics" they should correctly either call them Latin Catholics or Latin Rite Catholics or even Western Catholics (although many Anglicans and others also claim this description). Anglicanus (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You, I am sure, know that there is more to a Church than simply thr rite it follows and the rites within it; but I digress and realize I am fighting a futile battle.

When I come home, I will change the signage in front of my church, remove the "Ukrainian-Greek" from its title, and just wait for "Latin" Catholics to walk in and say, "wait a minute, this isn't a real'' Catholic Church," as has happened in the past. Julianhayda (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Edict of Thessalonica
Why there is nothing about the Edict of Thessalonica? It was essential for the establishment of the State Chruch of the Roman Empire. This edict of 380 AC made the Nicene Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and was the beginning of the Roman State Church.

"We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches." Edict of Thessalonica, by Roman Emperors

--178.190.181.180 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was already there, but hidden in a link titled "decree of the Emperor". I have exposed the true name of the link. Thank you for pointing it out. Elizium23 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

History from 1870 to the Second Vatican Council?
I am a relatively new Wikipedian, I have not seen the need to edit a locked page before, but there was a lot that happened in this missing period. What is the process of editing a locked article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Name Omitted (talk • contribs) 03:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * History of the Catholic Church has plenty on it. If you would like to expand on that, please feel free to do so. This large article is for a concise summary of the Catholic Church and exhaustive history is outside its scope. Elizium23 (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Murders committed by the Catholic Church.
Between the inquisitions and crusades innumerable innocent people have lost their lives under the authority of the Catholic Church. Why is Wikipedia so biased in not stating directly numbers of those whom have died? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.113.128 (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the numbers have been greatly exaggerated through time and legend and there are sub-articles that address all the details through valid reliable sources.Marauder40 (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 October 2013
In this article the first sentence states that RC population is 1.2 billion and there is a citation. The citation states that it is 1.214 MILLION. The word 'million' in the source needs to be changed to 'billion.'

67.168.147.85 (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The note says 1,214 million.  One thousand million is a billion, which lines up with 1.2 billion in the article lede.  RudolfRed (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The confusion is entirely understandable: the comma is used as a decimal mark in many countries and locales. However, this article is written in British English, where a period is used as decimal mark and a comma is a thousands separator. In fact, MOS:DECIMAL forbids the use of comma as decimal mark. Elizium23 (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 October 2013
Under membership statistics article states number of Catholics as 1,214 million. True enough, but it sure is confusing. Using a the term "thousand million" to refer to a billion is weird. Thanks for considering change.

74.192.32.24 (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. As I understand it, "thousand million" is still sometimes used to express the figure 1,000,000,000 in certain English-speaking countries, with the word "billion" reserved for 1,000,000,000,000 (aka a trillion). I think that this usage is now uncommon (see Long and short scales), but I'd like there to be consensus before making the change. The manual of style doesn't seem to explicitly deprecate "thousand million", so there should be plenty of wiggle room on this. Rivertorch (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

History Section Expansion
Most material I added was originally removed in June 2011. The original can be found here for reference: Talk:Catholic_Church/Old_history_section_(June_2011). --Zfish118 (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#List of Roman Catholic XXX
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Elizium23 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Divine motherhood
I agree with the desire to word the dogma of Mary, Mother of God including the word "divine". This is how it is attested in many WP:RS: http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/mariandogmas.html, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/mary/general-information/the-four-marian-dogmas/ , and even the Wikipedia article Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. The wording typically goes "Divine Motherhood" so if we could work that in without being redundant to "Mother of God" it would be great. Please do not delete "divine" from the wording because that was settled in ancient times by the Council of Ephesus. Elizium23 (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Divine motherhood", yes certainly. But "divine status", certainly not.  "Divine motherhood" means the fact of being mother of God.  "Divine status" means the status of being God! Esoglou (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree. I just think the edit could have been made with some rewording, rather than outright deletion. Some people object to "divine motherhood" as heresy but it's a time-honored phrasing that just refers to her status as Theotokos. Elizium23 (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The term "divine motherhood" is an ambiguous concept. It depends on a person on how to understand it regardless of being a Catholic or not. It can either refer to "being a mother to a divine being" or an "aspect of a divine being as a mother." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.32.219 (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. In English the phrase is open to misinterpretation.  Fortunately, it is no longer in the article.  I believe I can take no credit for that: I must have forgotten to respond in some way to the request of Elizium23.  Esoglou (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Membership numbers - not well sourced
The current number of Catholics in the article is sourced to http://www.catholicculture.org/, which promotes itself as being "dedicated to providing accurate world news, written from a distinctively Catholic perspective". The particular article in question says the figures are "according to the Vatican’s latest statistics."

Could these sources be any less independent?

Surely we can do better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The criteria is a "reliable source" rather "independent source" ("Reliable sources: Biased or opinionated sources"). --Zfish118 (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Third-party sources are much better than official ones, but the non-independent ones are fine if there's no other option. I'm not aware of anyone other than the Vatican that might know the number of Catholics in the world, so if my assumption's correct, there's no problem with the stats from there. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Opening sentence ~ length and grammar
To my sensibilities (such as they are) the opening sentence is unecessarily long, complicated and grammatically awkward. Can I suggest a revision into two separate sentences along the lines of:

"The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church. With a (current) membership estimated at 1.2 billion this makes it the world's second largest religious body after Sunni Islam."

Any thoughts and comments about this? Anglicanus (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I support. Esoglou (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As do I. I'm more concerned about the seeming precision in "1.2 billion members". Such numbers are always problematic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I support having two separate sentences. The numbers part however should not be so precise in my opinion it should be "It the world's second largest religious body, after Sunni Islam, with an estimated membership of more than a billion." ScitDei talk 10:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I like that. Though it's still a bit unsatisfactory describing the number of members when there is no clear definition of what a member is. HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The numbers are there in the "mebership statistics" subsection with citations, but I am of the opinion that precise membership in the introductory sentences are not required. ScitDei talk 11:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The existence of citations doesn't make the numbers meaningful. Do you know how they were collected in my country? (What that country is is irrelevant.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In your country they were collected as indicated in the introduction to the Statistical Yearbook of the Church, through a detailed questionnaire sent to each diocese. The figures reported by each diocese were then simply added up.  Esoglou (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for people's comments. As there does not appear to be any objections to the principle of revising the opening I would like to propose the following two possibilities:

1. "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church. With a current membership estimated at 1.2 billion, it is also the world's second largest religious body after Sunni Islam."

or

2. "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church. It is also the world's second largest religious body after Sunni Islam, with a current membership estimated at 1.2 billion."

Please indicate whether you prefer either No. 1 or No. 2 and make any suggested wording or punctuation changes.

Thanks, Anglicanus (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I prefer 2. Pass a Method talk  04:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I also prefer 2. But, in my opinion, there is no exact definition of "religious body" category. So I think it should be replaced by "adherants" or something similar.  ScitDei talk 06:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Religious Body"
I don't know why the reference to Sunni Islam has been added. As others have said, it is highly debateable that Sunni Islam - as opposed to the more "Catholic" Shia Islam - can be called a "religious body" any more than Protestantism can, and even if it could the comparison is surely undue for the opening paragraph of the lead. Haldraper (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The criteria for inclusion is WP:verifiability. Pass a Method talk  11:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily against it being mentioned - although I still have doubts that Sunni Islam is any more a "religious body" than Protestantism - but it being so prominent in the lead. Surely it belongs in the Demographics section if anywhere. Haldraper (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is verifiability so certain and obvious for Sandra Brenneman Oldendorf's statement to be included right at the beginning of the article and in Wikipedia's voice? Other sources (whatever their reliability) disagree with her: this (which puts 1995 Sunnites at 912,696,220 = 83% of 1,135,569,494; Catholics at 968,025,000); this; this (which puts Sunni Muslims at 1,135,569,494, 85% of 1,335,964,110); this.  Esoglou (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those sources are from 1995 and 2006 respectively. Thus are way out of date. My source isan update from 2011. The numbers also seem plausible because figures show that Islam is growing faster than Christianity; 1.36% annually vs 2.13% annually. Pass a Method talk  14:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Haldraper. Its way too prominent than it should be. I think it should be moved to the "Membership Statistics" subsection than in the first sentence. Moreover the citation given is not verifiable in by the average reader, so it makes it worthy to be downclassified to the subsection IMO. ~  ScitDei talk 16:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Quote from original source regarding the sentence in question:
 * Catholicism is the second largest religious body after Sunni Muslims and the largest of the Christian religions worldwide with approximately 1,076,951,000 adherents. The countries with the highest population of Catholics are Italy (97%), Poland (95%), Mexico (95%), Spain (94%), Colombia (92%), and Argentina (91%). In 2002, 22.9% of the total United States population was Catholic and 72.4% of Hispanics living within the U.S. were Catholic (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2008).


 * Green, Connie R. ; Oldendorf, Sandra Brenneman . Religious Diversity and Children's Literature : Strategies and Resources.
 * Greenwich, CT, USA: Information Age Publishing, 2011. p 177.
 * http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uconn/Doc?id=10468191&ppg=177
 * Copyright © 2011. Information Age Publishing. All rights reserved.
 * --Zfish118 (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, this seems to be more of an opinion of Green and Oldendorf, based on their vague definition of a "religious body" than a quotable fact. At a minimum, there should be an in text reference to them, as the origin of this interpretation.  Their work "Religious Diversity..." seems to be more of a tertiary source, compiling and interpreting facts of others.  There is perhaps a better source that could substantiate the claim that Sunni Islam is a larger "religious body".  Most other similar claims presented in this article have quotes from the original source's commentary substantiating the claim, where as this claim is merely copied in its in entirety with no such support.  User Passamethod cites "WP:Verifiability" as the criteria for inclusion, but this policy specifically allows elements to be excluded if it doesn't enhance the article, or for the content to be more appropriately placed.   I am uncertain as to how much insight this line contributes in its current form.  In order to make it more useful, we would need to discuss the relative sizes of both Christian and non-Christian bodies, which would seem to be off topic.   Based on the limited strength of the source, this claim might be more appropriately placed in the demographics section, with a "See Also" link to a page comparison of the relative sizes of "Religious Bodies".   --Zfish118 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zfish118.~ ScitDei Wanna talk? 06:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Define a monolithic religious body. Sunnis share the same mosque, same hadiths, same creed, same 5 pillars, and call each other "the ummah" (the community). What is more monolithic than that? Pass a Method talk  07:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First off this "fact" is not addressed in the body of the article so it really shouldn't be in the lead, since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. I also question the definition of religious body.  This seems a case of trying to claim the same as Protestantism is one religious body.  Just because they follow the same creed doesn't mean anything, a large percentage of Christians follow both the Nicene Creed and the Apostles creed, a large percentage of Christians hold issues like the Trinity and other "pillars" of Christianity, doesn't make them a common religious body.Marauder40 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But Sunnis share each others mosques. That makes them a homogenous group. Pass a Method talk  20:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is an interfaith center near here that is shared by a Jewish congregation, a United Methodist Church and a Roman Catholic church. That doesn't make them one other then the fact each of their building funds go to the same building.  Many churches allow congregations of other denominations to meet there, doesn't make them one.  It is very similar to a large group say the Primitive Baptists where each church has its own leader, each Church subscribes to shared beliefs, each Church will welcome members of other Primitive Baptists to worship with them, but they are still members of their own Churches, not a common core.  There is no common core that speaks for all Primitive Baptists.  They even may have group retreats or rallies when a church within the group is threatened or something like that but they are still distinct. Marauder40 (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you on Shia Islam - it is not one cohesive homogenous body. but Sunni islam most definitely is. You have a singulaar khutba (friday sermon), a singular tax zakat collection (tithing), a singular legal system (sharia), a singular political system (caliphate), a singular simultaneous prostration in prayer (sujud), a singular opening of the fast in ramadan (suhoor), a singular fast breaking (iftar), a singular recognised comunity (the ummah), a singular greeting (salaum alaykum), a singular funeral service, a singular prayer timetable, a singular dress code etc. To claim that Sunnis are not monolithic is frankly absurd. Pass a Method talk  20:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If the term "religious body" is proving controversial, would the substitute "denomination" as a reference to both Catholicism and Sunnism work better with all concerned editors? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not for the Catholic Church it wouldn't which does not accept the term "denomination" for itself, neither I suspect would Sunni Islam. Haldraper (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You learn something new everyday! Anyway, perhaps being more general can help in finding a solution which satisfies everyone. Is there a term, other than "religious body" or "denomination," which could apply to both Catholicism and Sunnism? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Religious tradition" perhaps? Haldraper (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The primary issue with "religious body" is that the source provides no definition for the term or substantiation for its claim (at least not on page 177 quoted above). Changing the term used does not address the underlying issue with the source, and actually makes the claim less attributable. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"Doctrinal and theological emphases" poorly phrased
I take issue with the sentence, "There are a variety of doctrinal and theological emphases within the Catholic Church,[11] including the Eastern Catholic Churches and religious communities such as the Jesuits, the Franciscans and the Dominicans." Source: Colin Gunton. "Christianity among the Religions in the Encyclopedia of Religion" I think this sentence is confusing because it might make someone think that "Jesuits, the Franciscans and the Dominicans" are doctrinally different. Actually, that is not true. There is a difference in how they respond to the Gospel message, but that is not a difference in "theological emphases" either. Franciscans are somewhat mystics that focus their ministry on the poor; Dominicans are theologians, while Jesuits are more pragmatics. Actually, none of the religious orders have different theology. They are all supposed to be faithful to the Magisterium. Differences may exist among members, but that is not the official position of the order. If they teach something too far out of line, members can be disciplined. For example, the Vatican issued a statement denouncing some of the writings by Tony DeMello, a Jesuit. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980624_demello_en.html I'm not sure how to fix this paragraph. Perhaps that sentence should delete the part about "Jesuits, the Franciscans and the Dominicans." They are only three of many Catholic religious orders. See http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/xrel.html. Religious orders are celebate groups of men or women that are not part of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. They are diffences in how to minister to the Body of Christ. I didn't make any changes to the article. BettyG (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Bettyg51

Categories
regarding the inclusion of "Christian denominational families" Catholicism never concedes to being just one member of a multitude of sects. "Denominationalism" (for lack of a better word) is a Protestant concept purposely embraced and utilized to undermine the one reality of One Lord, one FAITH, one baptism and hence one visible Church. When will Catholicism be recorded in non-Protestant terms via wiki?


 * As far as I know, it's the best thing Wikipedia can do when categorizing different religious groups under one umbrella. Unfortunate, yes, but anything else will get calls of WP:NPOV. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"It is among the oldest institutions in the world"
Isn't it "the oldest continuously operating institution in the world?" It sounds a bit less ambiguous if worded that way

23haveblue (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily, although it is the oldest Christian institution. Judaism I know is older, as are others that I can't bring to mind right now. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Quick question: While Judaism and others such as Buddhism are older, do any of them have an institution that has continuously lasted longer? Comparing the Catholic Church to an entire religion isn't accurate at all. You have to compare to an organization with said religion.122.1.124.211 (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Historical distortions
The article says: "which caused Urban to launch the First Crusade aimed at aiding the Byzantine Empire and returning the Holy Land to Christian control" That's not valid. Orthodox people were slaughtered that time. They were considered "schismatical" & "Heretics" and that "they should wash their sins with their blood".

In the history chapter: You also say nothing about the start of the "Catholic" Arianlike heresy, which started from Charlemagne. You hide again your false trinitarian dogmas(Filoque) on the theological chapter. This is part of your history made from Germans, not Romans. You broke your catholicity with "Holy Inquisition", where totalitarianism rose. Thank you for your attention. I hope you'll answer me soon. [user:uknown]


 * All of this information is sourced. If you have better sources, then provide them here and we can go over them.  If not, then I hate to break it to you, but wikipedia's job is to report what reliable sources say.  If reliable sources said the sky was brown, we would have to report that the sky is brown.Farsight001 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I don't doubt the sources. I say that these that i've written above are not written but they're an integral part of Catholic Church history. So they should be written. The article doesn't even mention those facts above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.20.157 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that's confusing. If you don't doubt the sources, then why do you clearly disagree with what they assert?Farsight001 (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Filioque and divergent beliefs
I think that Filoque should be written and in this article, not only in the article of "Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences". Since Catholicism believes in another Trinity than the one believed from the older Christians it needs to be stated in the Trinity content. It's one of the many beliefs of this church that seperate her from the apostolic one. Why would this not considered as important to write? Thank you. [user:uknown] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.20.157 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that's confusing. If you don't doubt the sources, then why do you clearly disagree with what they assert?Farsight001 (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Because i feel that they hide half of them on purpose. This makes me feel like if someone will read that article, he'll be brainwashed. See for example the Trinity content. It's said all right but it hides the neoteristic Filoque dogma. I guess it's like that in order not to create conflict with other churches or with what Bible says or create doubts for the authenticity of the church. But why to hide one main belief of the theology of the Catholic Church since the purpose is to write about it? This does not make the article objective. That's what i'm trying to say. Do you get me? [user:uknown]
 * No, at least I don't "get you". There is a very real limit to the amount of information any single article can contain, so we have created guidelines for all content, such as WP:WEIGHT. There are also a huge number of subarticles on this church, which go into greater depth on their particular subjects. If you can produce the independent reliable sources as per WP:RS to indicate such matters should be included in this particular article, as WP:BURDEN suggests, specific changes would certainly be considered.John Carter (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe i was too steep on the start so i'll take it easier now. The article has dedicated four lines on sex abuse cases. It's far more important to add Filoque. I don't say you to add lines. It'll just need one sentence and Filoque will be on blue, so people could click it if they want to see what it is. Does this proposal sound like too much? [user:uknown]
 * Yes, it sounds like too much. In the grand scheme of things, the filoque clause is minor information and too technical for an encyclopedia article.Farsight001 (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The Filoque was the cause (or pretext) for centuries of theological disagreement.  A few lines is not too much --Zfish118 (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

How could we add it then? [user:uknown] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.58.144.185 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Original poster, please see the correct spelling at "Filioque".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize about that. [user:uknown] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.190.57.24 (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

So how will we decide about it? Will we do a poll or something? How are these decisions taken in wikipedia? [user:uknown] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.190.57.24 (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We discuss it here and come to an agreement about what to do. If we can't agree, we request a comment (a formal action) from others.  I'm still not convinced of the necessity of mentioning it.  Wikipedia articles are supposed to be a general overview of what the article subject is - its history, origins, beliefs, behaviors, etc.  And the Church is 2000 years old.  There is a LOT out there about it.  In comparison to everything else, I think its too much detail for a general overview.  It's also something one learns about after lots of investigation and study, not as part of a general overview.  Most Catholics, probably a lot of Orthodox, and I'm betting the vast majority of protestants have never heard the word before.  It just doesn't seem necessary with all the encylopedias worth of other stuff that could be included.Farsight001 (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What is it you want changed in this article? It already mentions the Filioque phrase (Filoque is a mistake), and it says that that phrase is used by Western Catholics, but not by Eastern Catholics.  Several Popes have publicly recited the Nicene Creed in Greek without that phrase.  So you see that, for the Catholic Church, both using the phrase and not using it are legitimate.  It seems therefore that, if you want to discourse in Wikipedia on why you think its use is illegitimate, the place to do so is not here, but in Filioque or Eastern Orthodox Church (which does hold it to be illegitimate) or East-West Schism.  Esoglou (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's Filioque. I was just doing the mistake continuously during typing. Sorry. Mr.Esoglou, Filioque is not a result of a latin Nicene Creed but a result of the Synod of Toledo. Arians added it that time to support monarchy, ie the authority. Let's say it's not legimitate but tolerant, or even better mixed dogmas which ends up in a chaotic situation. If the Eastern Catholic Churches don't accept the confirmed from their Synods Filioque dogma, they're disobeying their own church and the infallibility of the Pope who decided it. Who told you that it's legimitate? Several Popes have publicly recited the Nicene Creed in Greek without that phrase, because that's the original Nicene Creed. This also creates doubts for the authenticity of that church. The other Popes were infallible and those who introduced another faith is infallible too because he's just a Pope? With these actions it's like he places the previous Popes and apostles and Christians as heretics and fallible and himself only as infallible. Who do they think they are to distort the Creed ie the symbol of faith of the Apostles and all the Christians just to serve the power? West introduced it and you say that i can discourse it in the Eastern Orthodox Church? This seems illogical to me. To Farsight001: You say that " And the Church is 2000 years old. There is a LOT out there about it. In comparison to everything else, I think its too much detail for a general overview." This subject employs the Church for more than 1000 years, ie the half time of the existence of Church. Still not important? Furthermore, the article says: <> This is not a doctrine of the Church. Christianity condemns that. This is the doctrine of the Church: <> John 15:26 [user:uknown] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.190.57.24 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that this is not a discussion forum for figuring out the beliefs of religions (see WP:NOTFORUM). Each claim regarding a religion's beliefs must be cited to a credible and WP:Reliable Source.  Nobody here wishes to distort or hide any important doctrine or doctrinal differences, but all commentary regarding beliefs incorporated into the article must be properly sourced. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it worthwhile to ask you again what exactly you want changed? Do you want the article to include the statement that, according to what you call "Christianity", the Catholic Church is condemned because, though it teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται), it denies that the Holy Spirit proceeds (procedit, not ἐκπορεύεται, a word with a slightly different meaning) from the Father alone?  One might as well ask for the addition of a statement that, according to Islam, the Catholic Church is condemned because it holds that Jesus is not just a human being and a prophet, or that, according to atheists, the Catholic Church is condemned because it believes in God, and so on.  This is an article on the Catholic Church, not on the beliefs of others, whether atheists, Islam, or what you call "Christianity".  Esoglou (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

We've reached to the misrepresentation of the words as Thucydides wrote... I personally don't want only adds but and removes. Mr.Esoglou, Filioque was never in the faith of the Church. It's a cacodoxy. In addition, the title is misleading. In the Nicene Creed we say that we believe in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The article gives the conclusion that they are this Church. This is the propaganda that it tells in: "the Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" section. Catholic Church is an ecclesiastical construct, not the Church. They exploit the title "Church", in order to gain adherents. In the same way that a sect calls themseleves as the Church of Christ, Catholics claim that too. There is no difference at all. With accepting all these, you're being acquiescent and brainwash people. This is not a veracious spirit that wants to be objective. Catholic Church can't be the apostolic one because it hasn't the same beliefs. Also, except from the apostolic succession, what commons in faith do they have with the Apostles? As we saw in John 15:26, they even ignore the Bible(the one of two sources of the content of faith with the Holy Tradition, which are actually conventional), to support their heretical claims. As you saw on my previous replies, i did not told about others beliefs. -Now, according to your logic i'll answer you similarly: It's not about what i call Christianity but what Christ said. Apostles also, condemn "Catholics" because they say the opposite(for example Filioque). [Διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις μὴ παραφέρεσθε] By manifold and strange doctrines do not be seduced, borne aside from the right path. Hebrews 13:9 -On others' beliefs(this is optional to read): Islam also claims against Old Testament(even though they "accept" it), because they say half the truth too. Christ is Prophet, Priest, and King but they still prefer to "accept anything in the Old Testament that agrees with the Qur'an.". Anyway, i'm not here to criticize the others beliefs. They are free to do so. This is just my opinion which doesn't count anything to them. I'll finish with what Apostles said about it(which is referred to Catholics too), not me: [Αλλά και εάν ημείς ή άγγελος εξ ουρανού ευαγγελίζηται υμίν παρ' ο ευαγγελισάμεθα υμίν, ανάθεμα εστω] As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! Galatians 1:9 [user:uknown] 176.58.153.128 (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As you say, wikipedia is not for propaganda. That ALSO means that we cannot simply declare that the Catholic Church is NOT THE Church either.  As the article makes clear, the Catholic Church BELIEVES that it is THE Church.  It is not propaganda to report that an organization believes something about itself.  Now do you have SPECIFIC suggestions for article improvement?  We're talking pick a sentence, provide it here, provide the suggested change, and explain why you want it to be changed.  Ok?  Just slinging general accusations of propaganda doesn't help us.Farsight001 (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It is fine to say what they claim but if there is a disagreement, saying another opinion is necessary, right? You've said before "That ALSO means that we cannot simply declare that the Catholic Church is NOT THE Church either.". Is there a proof that Catholic Church is the Church? That's my first main disagreement that needs to change. Catholic Church should not be named with capital letter(as the others like Armenian,Churches of Christ and so on...). As saint Just Popovic said(which i think it fits and to the article Christian Church): "The Church, being an overall and a uniquely God-human organism in all the worlds, cannot possibly be divided. Every division would have spelled her death." and "The Church is one and unique because it is the body of the one and only Christ. The dividing of the Church is ontologically impossible, which is why there has never been a division per se of the Church, but only a departure from the Church. According to the word of the Lord, the vine cannot be divided; only the voluntarily unfruitful vine branches fall off from the ever-living vine and dry up (John 15:1-6). At various times, heretics and schismatics had severed themselves from the one indivisible Church of Christ, who consequently ceased to be members of the Church and embodied in Her Godman body. Such were firstly the Gnostics, then the Arians and the Pneumatomachs (Spirit-opponents), then the Monophysites and Uniates and all the other heretic and schismatic legion." With naming all the other churches with capital letter, you accept that they are part of the Church, even though they've seperated themselves from Her. [user:uknown] 176.58.153.128 (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, giving another opinion is not necessary. I don't know where you got that idea.
 * And why should it not be given capital letters? That's literally its official name.  Do men named John Smith not get to capitalize their name because someone else might have had the name first?  Of course not.  That idea is just plain silly.  Formal names get capitalized.  That's how the English language works.  Its got nothing to do with authenticity or the truthfulness of that particular sect.Farsight001 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @The Original Poster (User:176.58.153.128), please provide WP:Reliable Sources to support your claims. This discussion will not go anywhere if you cannot produce sources that verify and substantiate your claims. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"No, giving another opinion is not necessary.". In the meaning that we have freedom and everyone can express his opinion without being silenced,threatened... The sources aren't necessary now. We haven't decided to change anything yet. The name Catholic belongs the the Eastern Orthodox Church, not to schismatics. "Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever." Creed of St Athanasius The name Catholic is a devious title. They tell it although they don't have Catholic faith. What is the Catholic faith? For example the decisions taken in the Ecumenical Synods by the whole Church(which they don't accept them all). Since they don't follow these, they're not Catholics. Therefore, this title has to change or to tell that they have nothing to do with it, even though it has dominanced as term but as we saw it's a propagandic term. Also, their construct comes from 1054, not from Christ. The only thing that you do is telling their claims but you have to write and the objective truth about it. [user:uknown] 176.58.153.128 (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The name "Catholic" belongs to whichever organization decides to name itself Catholic, end of story. No one possesses the name.  It is not trademarked.  Any group is free to name themselves the Catholic Church, and there is nothing propaganda-like in doing so.  You are, frankly, not right at all in anything.  At all.  So I'll be blunt because you don't seem to get it.  Provide reliable sources to support the changes you want made to the article or stop wasting our time.  As wikipedia says, it is about verifiability, NOT truth.  We report what reliable sources say, regardless.  If reliable sources said that the sky was brown, we would be REQUIRED to report that the sky is brown, even if we knew for a fact that its blue.  We need sources, end of story.  You can complain about it not being the "truth" until you're blue in the face (and I could argue back because I certainly disagree), but that's missing the point.  Give reliable sources that suggest the consensus supports your position.  If you cannot do that, we cannot change the article the way you want.Farsight001 (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you heard of literary property, ie copyright? The name doesn't belong to whoever schismatic decides to name itself Catholic but to the one who is Catholic. It is propaganda if they are not Catholics and still claim that they are and you understand from that point that they name themselves like that to obtain believers. One last question: What kind of sources exactly do you need to certify these? [user:uknown] 46.190.44.152 (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course I've heard of it, and you can't copyright a 2000 year old name. I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous.  It's not propaganda.  I'm not even sure you know the meaning of the word if you're going to call such a thing propaganda.  But regardless, you need some VERY good sources to support these changes.  So provide them or stop wasting our time here.  Without them we can do nothing.Farsight001 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course you can. Example: Someone is Catholic. Then he breaks off the communion and claims that he's Catholic. Isn't this insane? If i write a book does it count as a source? [user:uknown] 46.190.44.152 (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your scenario in not applicable because you are using Catholic as an adjective. Here it is a name.  But again, this is ultimately irrelevant.  Provide an appropriate source for your desired changes to the article or don't bother posting here.  Without sources, its just a waste of time.Farsight001 (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A name that expresses what? The Catholicity that they don't have? Their church construct which is not Catholic? Why exactly would you want sources for that? This is a way of thinking. [user:uknown] 46.190.44.152 (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A name that expresses the name they decided to give themselves. My parents named me Phillip.  It means "lover of horses", and yet I do not love horses.  I'm not sure I've even seen one in person the last 10 years and I couldn't care less.  A name is just a name.  And if they named themselves the Catholic Church, then that's what we call them.  No amount of complaining or pretending you didn't hear the part about us needing citations for your proposed changes will have an effect on that.  So give it up.  Without sources, no amount of complaining about the CATHOLIC CHURCH'S name will change a thing here on wikipedia, so please stop wasting our time.Farsight001 (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'll try to refer some sources and then answer and to your last message. There is still time left so i'll be late a bit. Is it okay? [user:uknown] 46.190.55.61 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The burden is strictly on you to provide sources. We have repeatedly requested sources, and you have not provided a single source.  I again refer you to WP:Reliable source.  If the sources you provide do not meet Wikipedia's standards, the information you provide will not be included in the article. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See these please: http://orthodoxwiki.org/One_Holy_Catholic_and_Apostolic_Church#Catholicity http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/stvincent.aspx http://preachersinstitute.com/2011/02/07/the-orthodox-understanding-of-primacy-and-catholicity/[user:uknown] 46.190.58.15 (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Those do not appear to be WP:RS. A wiki, for example, is never going to be a valid source. In addition, those three little sources are not going to be enough to completely overturn the hundreds of thousands of sources that say otherwise.  You're going to need something really REALLY amazing to upset the applecart here.Farsight001 (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)Why these sources are not valid?(please explain with a specific section of a link, not with a whole link or yourself) 2)What sources do you specifically mean that say otherwise? 3)The first source is from a book as you can see: http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith [user:uknown] 46.190.58.15 (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Orthodox Faith book would be perfectly acceptable as a source for the beliefs of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. They are not directly applicable to the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.  As for why the other sources are not acceptable, Farsight and I both provided a link to WP:Reliable Source.  It is strictly your responsibility to justify that the sources you supply are reliable according to Wikipedia standards.


 * It is further your responsibility to identify specific material you believe is inaccurate in the Catholic Church article, and to provide specific correct material from a valid and reliable source. You have only provided a series of links, and only vaguely alluded to the Catholic Church article having "lies! everywhere!".  This is neither helpful, nor appropriate behavior for Wikipedia; if you wish to productively contribute, I highly recommend studying Etiquette and modify your behavior accordingly.  You will otherwise be ignored, or reported to the administrators for possible sanctions, including suspension of editing privileges. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

May 13th arbitrary break
I don't want to sound aggresive but that's how i write. I'm not admin or even a user. My humble opinion is that you think narrow-minded in this subject. You don't explain in general why they'd think this has lies everywhere. The canon of saint Vicent of Lerins has a lot of meaning and it defines who is Catholic and who isn't: http://www.voskrese.info/spl/lerins2.html Here is a difference in the falsification that "RomanCatholics" interpet of what catholicity is, is told in the beginning of this article: http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/talks/catholicity.shtml Why this huge difference not be included? Everyone claims someone heretic by that. Now, i also refer in Catholicism article, because it hasn't an Orthodox section. It could at least be there because since "Catholics" give another meaning in what is catholic we can hardly say that they don't lie but in my opinion about the Catholic Church article, telling and the second version is necessary because it has use of this word. Someone might be confused. [user:uknown] 46.190.58.15 (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a useful suggestion; the Catholicism article did not have a break out section for the Eastern Orthodox (although they were discussed in the intro to the "divergent interpretations" section). I have added such as section. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Refer to Zfish's post above, where he explained most everything. If you don't like it, tough.  That's how it works around here, per the rules.  If you can't figure out how to abide by the rules or just really don't want to, then, to be blunt, go away.  We have no time for this.  Found your own wiki with your own rules and you can do whatever you want there.  But if you're not going to follow proper procedure here, we're simply not going to give a shit what you say, even if it had merit.Farsight001 (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's the rules but you. [user:uknown] 91.140.17.4 (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well one of the rules here is that we assume good faith, and since you're not doing that with me, obviously, its the rules and proper procedure you're not grasping.
 * If you want to change the article, I suggest you do the following: 1) copy, word for word a sentence or paragraph from the article you want changed and stick it in quotes and label it something like "problem section". Then provide an example of what you want the sentence or paragraph changed to and stick it in quotes and label it "proposed change".  Then explain WHY you want this change made and provide the citations, if necessary, to support that change.  Complaining that the article about the entity officially named "Catholic Church" s entitled "Catholic Church" is just plain silly and pointless and unhelpful - ESPECIALLY without bothering to provide an alternative suggestion.Farsight001 (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already told you man that the only thing we need is to explain in what meaning the articles says it. It is insufficient in the name section. Full acceptance of the Ecumenical Councils ie the decisions that were taken by the whole Church, is essential to claim yourself Catholic. This is what universal is. If a pope can remove decisions of his predecessors, if authority is above, we can't talk about universality. That's not how the Church acted all these years. The consubstantiality of the faces of Holy Trinity that Holy Fathers declared, constitutes standard for human relations. Εquivalent, sociability, democracy, without authoritarians and subordinates. Filioque is directly related to this because it deteriorates consubstantiality of the faces which reflects equality between human relations and democracy in the decisions of the Church. [user:uknown] 176.58.157.34 (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not making yourself clear. We have assumed "good faith" by engaging with you and providing resources to better express yourself.  We have even added a reference to the "Filioque" in the article based on your recommendation.  However, the posts you are making are full of grammatical errors and very technical terms, and we cannot discern your meaning.  Perhaps English is not your first language, and you cannot express yourself any clearer; but without clear and properly sourced recommendations, we cannot modify the article. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zfish in that you are not making yourself clear. In fact, I don't think you're making any sense at all.  I get the impression that you do not speak English and are using an electronic translator.  If this is true, I recommend you simply stop posting because it is too difficult to understand what you want.Farsight001 (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I really do many errors in this language. I may have bad knowledge of the English language but please, let me explain. We read from here: http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-81111086/is-mission-a-consequence-of-the-catholicity-of-the "If the church does not proclaim her truth (that is, rebukes her missionary task), she loses catholicity." This is what happened with “RomanCatholics”. They distorted the Holy Trinity with the Filioque dogma. It’s proved theologically that Filioque is wrong and it was also condemned by the Church in the Eighth Ecumenical Council ie the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox). The Eighth Ecumenical Council in 879 condemned those who simply "add" or "subtract" from the Creed of 381(and those who do not accept the doctrine of Holy Images of the Seventh Ecumenical Council). This was an Ecumenical Council because: the decisions were published as Roman laws signed by the Emperor after their acts were signed by the five Roman Patriarchs, Metropolitans and bishops. The Emperor convened these Ecumenical Councils in cooperation with the Five Roman Patriarchates a) Old Rome, b ) of Constantinople and New Rome , c ) of Alexandria , d ) of Antioch, which was added in 451 A.D e) of Jerusalem. The Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) doesn’t count as an Ecumenical Synod. We read from here: http://reocities.com/heartland/5654/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html The condemnation of the Roman Catholic Eighth Council (the anti-Photian Council of Constantinople of 869/70) by Pope John VIII is first given in this Pope's Letter to the Emperors Basil, Leo and Alexander. In this Letter which was read at the second session of the Photian Council of Constantinople of 879/80 and is included in the second Act of the Minutes, Pope John VIII writes: "And first of all receive Photios the most amazing and most reverend High-Priest of God our Brother Patriarch and co-celebrant who is co-sharer, co-participant and inheritor of the communion which is in the Holy Church of the Romans... receive the man unpretentiously. No one should behave pretentiously [following] the unjust councils which were made against him. No one. as it seems right to many who behave like a herd of cows, should use the negative votes of the blessed Hierarchs who preceded us. Nicholas, I mean, and Hadrian as an excuse [to oppose him]; since they did not prove what had been cunningly concocted against him... Everything that was done against him has now ceased and been banished..." (The Latin text is this Ac primum quidem a nobis suscipi Photium praetantissimum ac reverentissimum Dei Pontificem et Patriarcham, in fratrem nostrum et comministrum, eundemque communionis cum sancta Romana ecclesia participem, consortem, et haeredem... Suscipite virum sine aliqua exrusatione. Nemo praetexat eas quae contra ipsum factae sunt innjustas synodos. Nemo, ut plerisque videtur imperitis ac rudibis, decessorum nostrorum beatorum Pontificum, Nicolai inquam, et Hadriani, decreta culpet... Finita sunt enim omnia, repudiata omnia, quae adversus cum gesta sunt, infirma irritaquae reddita... Mansi vol xvii, cls. 400D & 401BC. For the Greek see Dositheos op. cit. p. 281f). A similar condemnation is found in Pope John VIII's Letter to Photios where he writes: "As for the Synod that was summoned against your Reverence we have annulled here and have completely banished, and have ejected [it from our archives], because of the other causes and because our blessed predecessor Pope Hadrian did not subscribe to it..." (Latin text: Synodum vero, quae contra tuam reverentiam ibidem est habita, rescidimus, damnavimus omnino, et abjecimus: tum ob alias causas, tum quo decessor noster beatus Papa Hadrianus in ea non subscripsit..." Mansi vol. xvii cl. 416E. For the Greek see Dositheos op. cit. p. 292). Finally in Pope John VIII's Commonitorium or Mandatum ch. 10, which was read by the papal legates at the third Session of the same Council, we find the following: "We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods." The minutes at this point add: "The Holy Synod responded: We have denounced this by our actions and we eject it from the archives and anathematize the so-called [Eighth] Synod, being united to Photios our Most Holy Patriarch. We also anathematize those who fail to eject what was written or said against him by the aforementioned by yourselves, the so-called [Eighth] Synod." (Latin text: Caput 10. Volumus coram praesente synodo pomulgari ut synodus quae facta est contra praedictum patriarcham Photium sub Hadriano sanctissimo Papa in urbe Roma et Constantinopoli ex nunc sit rejecta, irrita, et sine robore; neque connumeretur cum altera sancta synodo. Sancta Synodus respondit: Nos rebus ispsis condemnavimus et abjecimus et anathematizavimus dictam a vobis synodum, uniti Photio sanctissimo nostro Patriarchae: et eos qui non rejiciunt scripta dictave nostra cum in hac dicta a vobis synodo, anathematizamus. Mansi vol. xvii, cl. 472AB. See also cls. 489/490E which repeats these points as accepted by the Synod. See also Dositheos op. cit. p. 345 and p. 361). I have included these texts here because I repeatedly encounter comments in the works of Western scholars, especially Roman Catholics, who offer confusing and even disputed information about the unanimous Eastern and Western condemnation of the anti-Photian Council of 869/870. Why “RomanCatholics” don’t accept the Synod that condemned Filioque and at last decide to condemn the Filioque dogma? Does this makes them Catholic or since they don’t hold the truth anymore, they lose their Catholicity? If they deny it they auto-condemn theirselves and become schismastics without any serious reason. Only from pride. This removes the whole Catholic name. It’s only a title without any meaning. About Catholicism article: Thank you for adding an Orthodox section. Catholicity in Orthodoxy has another meaning and it’s told here: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/schmemann_unity_2.html I think it’s important to make this addendum. [user:uknown] 46.190.95.144 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * All of that was a giant waste of typing. As above, please provide a SPECIFIC suggestion for changing the article.  Whining and complaining about the bias you think exists in this article is pointless.  If you have no specific suggestions, please stop posting.  You are wasting everyone's time.  This is NOT a debate forum.  The talk page is for article improvement ONLY.Farsight001 (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with Farsight. I would prefer to resolve this discussion informally and let it simply end.  However, if you insist on continuing it, I will place a request a "community ban" (WP:CBAN) from editing the talk:Catholic Church page or another appropriate measure at the Administrators' noticeboard. --Zfish118 (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I leave a last choice if you want to continue here -> Why you judge the writing as a waste of time before you read it? It has all the suggestions for this and another three articles(the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic),Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox) and Catholicism). Especially about the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) and Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox): in the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879/880, Popes themselves and the whole Church condemns those who accept Filioque and the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) as an Ecumenical Council. What don't you understand? [user:uknown] 46.190.95.144 (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again - because English is not your native language, it is impossible to understand what you are trying to Find a friend who can write better and get them to do it for you or stop posting. It is not a waste of time reading. It is a waste of time trying to talk to YOU because you cannot understand.Farsight001 (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any friends. So i'll stop writing. By the way, i believe that you'll find very useful information for wikipedia articles in the last two articles from reocities and myriobiblos. [user:uknown] 46.190.58.5 (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Those websites do not qualify as WP:RS.Farsight001 (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that wikipedia burns my brain cells faster than anything. [user:uknown] 176.58.139.249 (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead still needs some kinks worked out
"The Church maintains that the doctrine on faith and morals that it presents as definitive is infallible. There are a variety of doctrinal and theological emphases within the Catholic Church, including the Eastern Catholic Churches and religious communities such as the Jesuit, mendicant, and enclosed monastic orders."

The first sentence of this paragraph is fine, but doesn't logically lead into the second sentence. I moved it to the top of the paragraph regarding doctrine. The second sentence is problematic. It seems to draw an unintended equivalency between the Eastern Catholic and the religious communities. It also seems to count "Jesuit" as type of religious order. The phrase "variety of doctrinal and theological emphases" is confusing as used, although directly quoted from the source. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"Extraordinary form"
My edit summary should have ended with "if, that is, 'extraordinary form' does deserve mention in an image caption", but somehow this phrase got deleted just before I saved. For my part, I strongly doubt that it deserves mention. Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Celebration of the Eucharist
This sentence was not well explained and perhaps unnecessary in the current section (celebration of the Eucharist):


 * "The Catholic Church also teaches that the Mass is a true, propitiatory sacrifice for sin, with the priest offering Christ to God the Father in persona Christi. Thus the elements of bread and wine are consecrated separately, signifying the sacrificial nature of the Mass, as Christ's blood was separated from his body during the crucifixion."

Additionally, these sentences were redundant or did not seem relevant:


 * The words of consecration, are drawn from the three synoptic Gospels and a Pauline letter.


 * The sacrament can only be validly confected by a validly ordained priest.


 * The Church teaches that Christ established a New Covenant with humanity through the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper (considered "the first Mass") as described in these biblical verses.

I place them here in case there is any crucial information that should be added back, either to the celebration section, or the doctrine section --Zfish118 (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Pew Study/Catholic Population Map
The on page 79 of the Pew Study found at http://www.pewforum.org/files/2011/12/Christianity-fullreport-web.pdf, the table titled "Christian Traditions by Region and Country" explicitly gives estimates for 2010 for various Christian populations in each country. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

See page 111 of that report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernio48 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I do believe the map makes a valuable addition to the article; I simply believe the phrasing that you yourself first used when adding the map adheres best to the published source. The authors used raw data from 2000-2010 to make an estimate of the total Catholic population in 2010. For instance, on page 87, the authors discus their methodology targeting 2010:
 * The overall number of Christians in each of the 232 countries and territories is calculated by multiplying the United Nations’ 2010 population estimate for each country and territory by the most recent and reliable demographic or social-scientific estimate of the percentage of Christians in each country’s population.
 * --Zfish118 (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the definition of "Catholic" in the Pew Study is not precisely that applied in this article, but it is perhaps close enough. Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the study should cited in the caption directly to clarify the source of the numbers. --Zfish118 (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Schreck
I presume that the unspecified book by Schreck repeatedly cited in the article is Alan Schreck's Essential Catholic Catechism, which is not freely available. I wonder how accurate are the statements attributed to it. One in particular is the statement that the New Testament was never compiled before the Codex Vaticanus was written. The article about that manuscript says that, as it now exists, it lacks 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation; that it may never have contained Revelation, and that it probably contained New Testament apocrypha. Did Schreck write what the article attributes to him? It is to be hoped that he did, for otherwise doubt is cast on the accuracy of the other statements attributed to him. Esoglou (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When I read this, I presumed the text meant to convey that the Codex Vaticanus was the oldest extant compilation, not necessary the first. It was poorly written, but when I revised it, I tried to leave it semantically equivalent to not break the attribution. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation
Schreck, Alan (1999). The Essential Catholic Catechism. Servant Publications. ISBN 1-56955-128-6.
 * First added to the bibliography, and as a footnote source on 13 March 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&diff=198105376&oldid=197894523).
 * Deleted from bibliography on 31 January 2012 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&diff=474253029&oldid=474189952)

Edit
I have thought it best to replace the material on the Catholic canon of Scripture attributed to Schreck with what I think is clearer and surer material. Schreck seems to have attached disproportionate importance to that one manuscript, whether in the nonsense version attributed to him in this article ("the New Testament writings first found" in that manuscript), which says the writings, not just the list of them, were found nowhere until then, or in the transcription of his words given, since 15 May 2008, in the misnamed article "Easter Letter" ("The present list of New Testament writings was first founded [surely a mistyping!] in the Codex Vaticanus from Rome around A.D. 340 ..."). The article is misnamed, because it is about only one of the many circular letters that Athanasius (this was his 39th!) and other Bishops of Alexandria sent annually to inform of the date on which Easter was to be celebrated that year. Surely something less schrecklich than Schreck can be found. Esoglou (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

/* Contemporary issues#Social teachings */
The social teaching's segment seemed to hover out of place as its own section, and is relevant to several points in the Contemporary Issue section. I am still not certain if it is a good fit there, so a revert would not be taken personally. --Zfish118 (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Social teaching
The enumeration of these seemed too much for the main article:

The Church enumerates "corporal works of mercy" and "spiritual works of mercy" as follows:

Faith (rather than reason)
Believing something by faith does not exclude reason and we are exhored not to abandon that very reason by the Catholic Church. The assertion is most definitely not in any cited source, is not in any accurate source, and has no place in the lede section. Elizium23 (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me what wording is concerning you. The word "reason" does not exist in the lead. No comparison of faith and reason is made. I cannot see any assertion that faith excludes reason. Personally, I think it does, but it's not necessary to say so in the articles on every religion, but that's a different discussion, so there's no need to say it in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * See the addition made by this edit which was the second time the wording was inserted in the lede. I have removed it since then. Elizium23 (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, that explains it! Perhaps you should be more careful coming here and complaining about something that ISN'T in the article, without explaining the situation a bit better. Oh well, I won't fight your removal of the comment, but as I say, surely faith and reason are somewhat different things. On some levels they are, virtually by definition, mutually exclusive. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're really interested in the feelings of the Church in this matter, I'd suggest reading the theological greats, starting with Thomas Aquinas. None of them would agree that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Elizium23 (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What's the point of referring me to the thoughts of a man of absolute faith on how rational faith is? You need to also look at the thoughts of men (and women) of reason who reject faith entirely. (Why, oh why, do religious people come here trying to convince us all that their faith is rational? Please find a more appropriate forum. And, before any of the haters start attacking me here, please note that at no stage have I condemned faith.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This conversation has veered from the subject matter and become far too personal, so I shall be exiting here. Elizium23 (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Having and expressing a view that is different from yours is not a personal matter in any way at all. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The topic is that the church does not teach faith and reason to be mutually exclusive, which was misrepresented in the article. The writings of Saint Thomas are a source for the factual claim that the church teaches their compatibility, not necessarily the accuracy of the church's teaching. Discussing or defending personal beliefs or interpretations is inappropriate for the talk page. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

John Paul II's Encyclical Fides et Ratio is an excellent resource if someone is interested in this topic. HiLo, "religious" people are not here to convince you or anyone else of anything. Should an editor be here it is because they are interested in making the article here. I wonder if it would be appropriate to ask why do you always try to convince us that we are not rational in our beliefs? The shoes easily fits the other foot also. -- Storm  Rider  06:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What? That makes little sense. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Canon (Doctrine section)
Perhaps a bit more clarity and context regarding the acceptance of the New Testament canon east and west is needed. I added a footnote explaining Luther's dispute, but I am uncertain about the only some "place them at three different status levels". There is no discussion as to what these levels are or why it there is any dispute. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sex abuse crisis in lead section
I recently reverted a series of edits from the article's lead section that misrepresented the sexual abuse scandal. Firstly, every organization has a small percentage of members with unfortunate pedophilic tendencies; this alone is not notable. What is notable about the church's scandal is that it grossly mishandled a significant number of abuse incidents and accusations. The lead should accurately reflect this. There used to be a neutrally phrased reference to the scandal in the lead developed through consensus. This should be restored. I am editing on my phone and cannot do this right now. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the edits inappropriately used statistics presumably for clergy as a whole, and misrepresented them as applying to the more limited subset of clergy within the hierarchy, which is not necessarily the case. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I have twice commented here, and twice Zfish118 has deleted my comment without explanation, discussion or an Edit summary. That is bad faith editing. HiLo48 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC) I also posted on this user's Talk page. He has deleted my comment there without response or Edit smmary. Clearly this editor does not actually want discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll restore your comment, below--but you should really consider striking the personal accusation., do not remove valid talk posts again. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What's this "every organization has a small percentage of members with unfortunate pedophilic tendencies"? First, that's patently wrong, and secondly, the issue with the Catholic Church is that it hid and protected the perpetrators for decades. To almost everyone outside the church today, and to many within, the sexual abuse issue is currently the most notable one about the church. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I cannot be certain what caused offence here because communication has been appalling. My posts have now three times been deleted without discussion, without explanation, and without Edit summaries. One post has now been restored here, and now someone has deleted part of. I'll guess that part is what upset some people. Maybe Zfish118 isn't an apologist for the church. I don't know. And note that again I have used the word "maybe". But I will apologise for that suggestion. However, now let me put my perspective. I teach in a Catholic school. The part of the church that runs my school has openly conceded that sexual abuse occurred in the past, apologised for it, and promised to do all it can to repair as much of the damage as possible. It has not said "It was OK because there are paedophiles elsewhere." That is a copout. And I will say it again, people who take that line do seem like they are trying to excuse appalling behaviour. As a teacher, when I criticise a student for unacceptable behaviour, the response is sometimes "But he did it too", while pointing at another student. I think we all know that's not going to work. As for Zfish118 telling us that all other organisations contain paedophiles, that's clearly nonsense, and insulting in itself. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for finally indicating why you are so unusually interested in Catholicism. FWIW, at least regarding the US, it might be of interest to you that studies have indicated US teachers are worse abusers than US priests. Apparently, regular contact with teenagers and such in some sort of supervisory role increases the incidence generally. The comment also indicates that WP:POV might be an issue here, as criticizing an employer one is unhappy with can cause concerns of bias as well. You may well,through no fault of your own, be well too close to this topic.
 * Say what you will about me personally, but the Britannica article on the Catholic Church has more works in its bibliography relating specifically to the RCC in England than for the entire Southern Hemisphere combined, which I believe raises questions about whether the article has a European bias. I can and will check other good recent reference sources on the topic in the next week or so to help us determine relative weigt in the main article, and I encourage others to do the same.
 * Also, at request, I would be more than willing at request look for and forward any sources I can find on Catholic sex abuse, andnote there is no way I would know, if I were forwarding to a throwaway account. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Gee you're quick at jumping to conclusions JC. My current employment began less than six months ago. My interest in religion began over half a century ago. Please go away and make a new set of assumptions. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are of oourse obviously right. None of the qualification you added was even remotely even implied in your comment above. I clearly shoud apologize for making the irrational and apparently unjustifiable assumption that just about any person reading your comment would make and I guess I should apologize for not assuming that what seemed to be a straightforward statement from you. actually was one. My profoundest apologies for assuming you would ever make a fully honest and straightforward statement. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * John Carter, there are many things about me you don't know, just as there's an awful lot about you that I don't know. That's as it should be. I simply expanded one more piece of knowledge about me above to explain why I have good knowledge of what one part of the Catholic Church in one part of the world is doing. Now, let's get back to the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It is my firm belief that I should be able to contribute to an online encyclopedia without having my character impugned. Since your opening response to my post contained a personal attack, hinting ("might") at conclusion with vial cover ups, I considered the entire post to be abusive. I immediately deleted it and privately reported it to several admins to be removed. I then attempted to delete the entire section, since you seemed committed to reposting your attack, and I did not wish to disrupt the page. I had hoped administrative intervention would be quicker.

My entire post was germane to the content I removed. The content was a babbling of statistics, comparing the rate of pedophilia among clergy to rate of the general population. This is irrelevant. What is relevant is the church's failure to appropriately respond to incidents and accusations of abuse. I personally added the section regarding sexual abuse of minors to the Catholic Church article, and every few months find myself reverting edits that try to hide this unfortunate and disgusting chapter in church history. I want the abuse of minors to stop, in the Catholic Church, in the public schools, in private families, everywhere, and to imply that I "might" wish to cover it up is an abusive and spurious accusation.

User:HiLo48, you appear to have a bad tendency to respond without understanding the issue being discussed. In the section above, you expressed frustration at another poster because he was commenting on content that was not in the lead; content that the user had just deleted. Even here, you are feuding with other authors. In my first post in this section, I explicitly stated that I had just removed content, but you still did not check which content was removed before responding. Instead, you choose to post a personal attack, not in the heat of a contentious discussion, but as the first response. Wikipedia generally requires an assumption of good faith, but when your style is consistently provocative, this assumption simply cannot be made. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Edits
Please pardon the dozens of minor edits I did today. I attempted to standardize years worth of references, and encountered numerous minor, but difficult errors, due to incompatible templates using similar parameters, etc. Wherever possible, I attempted to perform multiple edits at once, and limit these mass edits to a specific category. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A summary diff for before and after:Aug6-Aug7 Edits --Zfish118 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your perseverance. Esoglou (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Catechism of the Catholic Church citation template
Greetings,

I have developed a template to help quickly cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church (found here: Template:CCC), based on the citation style that has become common here at the Catholic Church article.

The template takes the paragraph number, automatically generates a link to the online English version found at . It also automatically formats the citation using the template:cite web internally, and also can display both a single paragraph or a simple range of paragraphs. It also automatically generates a reference name based on the paragraph or range, and will assign the same footnote to citations with identical paragraphs or ranges.

At this point, I see no need to convert well formatted footnotes, but it might be useful when editing portions of the text with bare paragraph numbers, with no link or access date. I have tested the template, and have worked out most kinks, and documented a few workarounds, but I would appreciate anyone who can find the time to test it out and give me feedback. Thanks! --Zfish118 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For greater flexibility and reliability, as well as better consistency with other citation templates, Template:CCC must now be enclosed in "ref" tags . --Zfish118 (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Page Name
Greetings. I believe the title of this page is misleading. It should read "Roman Catholic Church" because the Eastern Orthodox Church is also officially called the "Orthodox Catholic Church". And historically, it was Rome which separated itself away from the historically continuous Christian practices of the rest of Christendom. It is important for readers to know that the Roman Church is not the only Church simply referred to as the "Catholic Church" and it has less claim to historical continuity the Orthodoxy. Therefore, the title is both misleading and presumptive. Ri Osraige (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yawn. No. Elizium23 (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It's there by common consent. Plus there's a disambig notice (Catholic Church (disambiguation)) right under the title,just in case anybody has wandered into the wrong room. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ri, it might help to take a look at the archives for this page, because the arguments against "Roman Catholic Church" are there, explained with a lot more eloquence than I ever could. Achowat (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ri, I understand your position and this was discussed in depth when we were discussing the proper name of the Catholic Church. Although this is not a black and white discussion, there was a great deal of discussion and then a vote where Catholic Church was chosen as the best name for the article. You may want to go back and review the lengthy discussion. Nothing is ever in stone on Wikipedia and if you think you have valid points we did not discuss previously that may sway the majority of the readers then feel free to bring those points here for further discussion. I participated in the discussion and voted that the most correct title for this article is Catholic Church, but I am more than willing to review it again should new information be brought forward. Cheers, -- Storm  Rider  13:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Storm. I'm still learning how to fully utilize Wikipedia, so forgive me if I seem unawares.  I'll read through the reasons given for why the community has decided to drop the word "Roman" from the title.  If I have any other info to add, I'll do so.  Thank you.Ri Osraige (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If this really was decided by a vote, something we're not supposed to do here, it would be a perfect example of our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo, I suspect you know what I meant; regardless, I misspoke. Sorry to have mislead anyone. A correct process as directed by Wikipedia was undertaken and completed. However, it is understood that no one is neutral and all are biased. Our objective is to make articles as factually neutral as possible and understand that editors and participants are biased. -- Storm  Rider  04:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Where would I go to read the debate? I can't find where this discussion has already taken place.  Thanks.Ri Osraige (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You can use the search bar at the top of the page to locate past discussions, dating several years back. Also see Talk:Catholic Church/Name, where you will find several past discussions from 2006 and the decision not to change this article's title. There have arguments on both sides, but every time the consensus has been to retain the current title of the article. -- HazhkTalk 17:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to post to this page about the influence of the Catholic church in the area of psychology. This post would resemble a timeline/history point of view of how the Catholic church has affected the study of psychology, theories and philosophers. Do you feel as if this is an appropriate page to post this on or should I create a new page? Hchlebo15 (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hchlebo15 Thank you for your interest! That sounds like it would probably be better off as a separate page. Drop me a line on my talk page if you want any help working on drafts for a Catholicism and Psychology page and then establishing it. Cheers! Juno (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

History Section
The intro to the history section presents doctrine (or the Catholic church's view of its history), which is not necessarily the same as the actual history of the church. I have suggested that some counterpoint be included to render the presentation NPOV. I have suggested that at the end of the history intro section, viz. after "It interprets the Confession of Peter found in the Gospel of Matthew as Christ's designation of Saint Peter the Apostle and his successors, the Bishops of Rome to be the temporal head of his Church, a doctrine known as apostolic succession" the following be added, "The historicity of these claims is debated. According to many scholars, including prominent historian Bart D. Ehrman, Peter was never a bishop, or leader, in Rome, and the Catholic teaching of apostolic succession of the bishops, popes, of Rome via the unbroken line of popes, claimed as successors to Peter is not historically supported.  " Comments? Piledhighandeep (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll comment in that you seem to have no idea what apostolic succession actually is. I don't know if you're using these sources as information about that, but try reading the article linked, apostolic succession is not an 'unbroken line of popes' but many, many unbroken lines of bishops traced back to the apostles. The Bishop of Rome is just one of thousands who claims apostolic succession. Elizium23 (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Notice the wording of the article. It states clearly that the "Catholic Church CLAIMS such and such".  It does not present these things you have a problem with as absolute facts of history, but as things the Church CLAIM to be history.  That makes the statement accurate (because it does indeed claim those things) and not at all pov.  Adding that others disagree and presenting an argument and sources to provide evidence of/support for their disagreement is the pov problem here.  This article's purpose is, basically, to answer the questions "what is the Catholic Church" and, since its a religion, under that umbrella is "what does the Catholic Church believe".  Your additions provide no help to the article.  You want to note that the Orthodox Church believes it has true apostolic succession?  Then go put that in the Orthodox Church article - except its already there.  Go look at how that article handles the issue of multiple claims to apostolic succession.  It is nowhere near as argumentative as you are being with your edits.
 * On a personal note, I don't appreciate the threats to report me when you are blatantly the one doing the edit warring and not abiding by WP:BRD by doggedly re-adding your version over and over before the discussion is concluded.Farsight001 (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Another editor has already helped to modify this to reach a consensus. You reverted both of our edits. I'm sorry you are so upset, but WP:NPOV requires that the Catholic Church's view cannot be the only one dealt with in the introduction to the "history" section. Piledhighandeep (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not what NPOV means at all. I highly recommend you actually read the policy.  I'm also not upset.  You just shouldn't be threatening other editors for doing something that you were actually the one doing.  Really, you shouldn't be threatening other editors at all.  Its not helpful.Farsight001 (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The alleged "Byzantine papacy" might be appropriate, but would require direct sourcing. If it is too detailed for here, then certainly in "History of the Catholic Church". --Zfish118 (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A Proposition in the POV Debate
What started as an innocent discussion of how to reduce WP:POV in this article seems to have turned into a bloated, convoluted mess in which nobody knows what the other is saying. I feel a little guilty about this, since I was the one who asked User:Piledhighandeep to bring it up here in the first place. No one person seems to be at fault here (and for the sake of all our sanity don't point fingers); we just all seem to be focusing on different areas of this very large article. Therefore, I have devised a Grand Plan for Getting Stuff Done to help us actually wrap this up and accomplish something.

Step 1: Start with addressing POV issues one section (or in some cases, such as the history section, sub-section) at a time. Step 2: Keep discussions for the one section of the article UNDER THE SAME THREAD, as this is what lead to this discussion being so convoluted in the first place. Step 3: Only discuss the one section that needs to be fixed. Other issues can wait. Step 4: Be kind and courteous of others during the discussion. Don't immediately accuse of POV, sock puppetry, etc. Shouldn't be necessary to say this, but I've seen it happen in discussions of this sort on other pages. Step 5: Do NOT add controversial edits to the section being discussed without asking everybody else first. A section that hasn't been previously discussed is fair game. Step 6: Try to reach a consensus within a reasonable amount of time. (Of course, define reasonable...)

A few of the topics that seem to need addressing during the POV discussion (from my observation of this debate) would include:
 * the Catholic Church's claim to be the "one true Church". How do we phrase this?
 * the Catholic Church's relation to other Christian Churches who claim to be the "one true Church" (eg. Eastern Orthodox Church). How much information is too much? Where do we put this information?
 * How do we present the History section? (In my view, this seems to be the most important issue since it seems to have the most writing that would be considered violation of the POV policy.)
 * What are unbiased sources? What are accurate sources?

I'd like to ask all editors on this page, but particularly ', ', ',, , ', , and  to provide feedback on this plan and any improvements they would like to make to it, or any other POV related topics we need to discuss. (The people I have "tagged" [for lack of a better term] are those who have actively participated in the POV discussions thus far.)
 * I agree, User:Luthien22, and I propose you as moderator of discussion. Esoglou (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, thanks for taking the time to organize things. Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

History lead/Early Christianity
Following this framework, I propose to begin with the lead section/early history. I reviewed a variety of encyclopedias to see how they addressed the issue. General interest encyclopedias, such as the World Book and abridged Americana, use language substantially similar to the content I initially removed when discussing the early history. They describe Peter as the leader of the Apostles, and Pentecost as what the church teaches to be its establishment. They even use language describing the New Testament as recording the general activities of Jesus' early followers.

A comprehensive encyclopedia, the unabridged Britannica, touches upon the controversies raised by Piledhighandeep, but also discusses the counter arguments of this position. The counter argument it describes are substantially similar to the ones listed in the Tract ("Was Peter in Rome?") from Catholic Answers I posted above. These included quotes from respected scholars in antiquity that placed Peter exercising his ministry in Rome, whatever the details of his ministry might have been. The Britannica discusses this issue as part of a larger section describing the connection between the early church and the modern Catholic Church/Bishop of Rome, which the more general encyclopedias do no really address.

My conclusions from this are as follows; for sheer cultural literacy, the "traditional" narrative directly linking the early and later churches must be told. Several encyclopedias use this narrative, although duly noted where these are based on Church tradition. Challenges to the traditional narrative should be responsibly documented, with counter arguments. Reliable sources must be used for both sides. The challenges, as far as I can tell, are academically credible, although held by a minority (but not a fringe group).

As for how to address other churches that make similar historical claims, these do not really need to be addressed. Both the Orthodox and Catholics accept that there was one church since antiquity until the eleventh century at the earliest ("two" if you count the early split of the Oriental Orthodox). Doctrinal differences can be addressed as needed throughout the timeline; wherever groups split it can noted whether both claim, exclusive to the other, continuity with the historical church. The splits are historically undeniable, and the claims of succession are undeniable. The discernment of doctrinal truth is beyond Wikipedia's scope; we can only hope to document the most relevant claims and counter claims pertaining to each article's subject. (made from axillary account) --Zfish118 (talk) 15:22 16 October 2014 (EDST)
 * I'm not convinced by the conservative "cultural literacy" and traditional-way-this-is-taught argument. "Cultural literacy" used to necessitate learning (as one's parents had) that Columbus had to fight the medieval belief that the world was flat. (See Myth of the Flat Earth. That ahistorical myth, inaccurately over romanticizing Columbus' voyage, was started in the 1800's by Washington Irving.) Wikipedia does not lead its Columbus history article with such ahistorical traditional claims, though doing so might promote "cultural literacy." Recent historians have learned much from the ancient Nag Hammadi library texts (made available only in the late 1970's). The analysis of the early church using secular historical techniques is recent too, and has led to many changes from what people may still wrongly believe is the "mainstream" historical view. Also, cultural literacy is different on some of these topics in different countries. In the East James the Just is regarded as the brother of Jesus. The West does not regard him as the brother of Jesus. Are we to present the view that makes a reader "culturally literate" in the West or East? Isn't it the business of a history section to present fact based history, not choose a particular culture's literacy to privilege and promote? Cultural literacy, like great literature and classical mythology, is not history, maybe we should create a new section (not history) for it. Piledhighandeep (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Both of you have relevant points, but I'd just like to point out we're supposed to be discussing the lead. It's two sentences. The issues you're bringing up don't really come into play until the next section on the early Church. Just for reference, this section is what we're discussing (as of this writing): The Christian religion is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, who lived and preached in the 1st century AD in the province of Judea of the Roman Empire. Catholic doctrine teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community established by Jesus.
 * The question at this point is simply if it's necessary to mention the other Church's claims to be continuations of this community (eg. Eastern Orthodox), or if we should leave that information for later in the history section. Any detailed "cultural literacy", "the way things are taught" or "the way things taught are POV" belong later in the section simply because this is a lead. Once we get to that section, all of these arguments will come into play to help us figure out what's the best way to present the information. Luthien22 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think what Zfish118 has in mind is not the lead proper but a subsection on early organization of the Church, episcopacy in particular. Piledhighandeep has a similar wish.  Should we accept the short lead as it is and then go on to discuss such a subsection? If that idea is agreed, we could then, but only then, go on to discuss the wish of these two editors, perhaps on the basis of the treatment of the question in Pope.
 * I myself would much prefer a more drastic solution. I have not previously adverted to the existence of the Wikipedia article on the History of the Catholic Church.  How stupid of me, you will think, in view of the indication about the main article.  True, but I may not be the only person who after working through or even just glancing through the long section here with its many subsections and even a sub-subsection, had forgotten what was given at the start of the section.  So I think we should merge to the specific article on the topic everything that is of value in the history section here, and in general Catholic Church article have no more than "On the Catholic Church's history, see History of the Catholic Church."  Otherwise, what an enormous amount of energy is wasted on duplicate work!  As long as a section on history exists in this general article, discussions such as the present are likely to make it expand unnecessarily again and again.  Esoglou (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The original lead section here was originally part of the lead section of "History of the Catholic Church", and editorial consensus reach here certainly should apply to both articles. "History", as far as I can tell, is a branch from the main article here.  The history section of "Catholic Church" was thoughtfully edited a number of years ago before I became involved to roughly its current appearance, while "History" has become neglected and perhaps bloated.  As the flag ship article, "Catholic Church" I believe should have a thorough, if limited history section, especially to give context to the lengthy organization and doctrine sections.  Further work is needed to link events and organizational developments mentioned throughout the article to the history section to give them better context.  Ultimately, high quality here will serve as an invitation to read more in depth article, and encourage thoughtful editing of the more detailed articles. (Edited from auxiliary account) --Zfish118 (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also concur that the content issues discussed here may be more applicable to an "Early Christianity" section, than the lead itself. As to the question posed by the moderator, I do not believe alerting readers that other churches claims to originate from the Apostles is necessary.  The very beginning of the "Catholic Church" article says that it is the "largest Christian church" alerting the reader that there are other churches; it is thus trivial to alert the reader that other churches have different beliefs.  As I previously said, when splits occur, it would be appropriate to note when both sides claim continuity to the potential exclusion of the other.  This would appear to be the approach the other encyclopedia's I reviewed took. To respond to Piledhighdeep, understanding the "traditional" narrative is simply necessary to understanding the new interpretation of modern scholars; as noted, the commentary needs to be thoughtfully addressed to avoid WP:UNDO weight.  --Zfish118 (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Zfish118's suggestion that an "Early Christianity' section could help organize things. I thought User:Esoglou's suggestion of using the approach of Pope as a starting point was an interesting idea. I think User:Esoglou's point about much work being duplicated here and on History of the Catholic Church is probably true (for instance we will eventually have to transfer what we have decided here to that article's lead as well as User:Zfish118 pointed out). I've noticed huge redundancy in wikipedia articles, and the associated problem of sub-articles sometimes telling a different story, but that is a much larger issue. Piledhighandeep (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I went over to the History of the Catholic Church article, and it looks a lot like the history section we already have in this article. Therefore a lot of what we have in this version needs to go. I agree with User:Zfish118 that we need to focus on quality over quantity. I think the main things we need to focus on in the history section are the history of the papacy (where User:Piledhighanddeep's historical POV monitoring would be very helpful) and brief but clear explanations of where the different splits with the Catholic Church have occurred (eg. Protestant Reformation or the Great Schism). Anything else non-essential to an understanding of what the Catholic Church is (eg. multiple popes at the same time, church councils, etc.) can move to the separate history article if it isn't already there. Luthien22 (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There was an [intermediate version] circa 2012/2013, which was mostly rolled back due to large gaps in the history. I tend to favor whittling further now, rather than starting from near scratch as the intermediate had.  Ecumenical Councils are very important to churches understanding of itself, and should be included (especially as most were either the cause of or response to a major split). --Zfish118 (talk) 6:11 18 October 18 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoa, that version is much better. I would like to see maybe a couple sentences about the Church's involvement in the Protestant Reformation (besides the one already present mentioning the existence of the Counter Reformation), but otherwise it looks pretty good to me. Anybody else? Luthien22 (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should make a firm proposal to replace the present section with "that version". We could then see if it has anyone else's support.  At present, Zfish118 says he doesn't prefer it.  Piledhighandeep strongly wishes to add something about early episcopacy, which is not in "that version".  I prefer my more radical idea.
 * May I please be permitted to make an observation on an inaccuracy at the start of "that version", which another editor wants to include in the present text also. Peter's Confession is not what is interpreted as "Christ's designation of Saint Peter the Apostle and his successors, the Bishops of Rome to be the temporal head of his Church".  Peter's confession (in the sense of "acknowledgement" – cf. "I confess one baptism") is in Mark's version "You are the Messiah", in Luke's "You are God's Messiah", in Matthew's "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."   It is the response of Jesus to Peter, found only in Matthew, with no trace of it in Mark or Luke, that Catholic theologians (and perhaps the Church itself, as distinct from even popes and other bishops saying something in a sermon – I haven't checked) interpret as Jesus' promise that he would in the future build his Church on Peter.  And it is not there but in  that they discern Christ's actual designation of Peter as (supreme) pastor of the Church.  Esoglou (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As a newcomer to this discussion, I would like to say that I agree the intro needs re-writing for NPOV (as do many other religious histories in WP--the one I gnash my teeth at the most is the biography of John Calvin). I agree that the history of the present day Catholic Church probably begins in 313, however what lead up to the Catholic Church's hierarchy in 313 needs to be recorded as well; it didn't just appear out of thin air. So the fact that there was no bishop of Rome until circa 150 needs to be included, and how one person became the leading bishop of Rome needs to be included as well. And then how the bishop of Rome became the leading bishop by about 600 ADE. (My personal point of view is that Jesus primarily taught anti-hierarchy.) I like including, though, the idea that official Catholic teaching does not necessitate that Peter was the bishop of Rome, merely that he was the one they believe was designated by Jesus to lead. 174.63.103.38 (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that the church does not claim any particular temporal office for Peter is a significant clarification reached earlier on this discussion page recently. I caution against discussing personal beliefs or views and, more generally, against making assumptions about other poster's motives.  Discussion should be kept focused on what can be attributed to reliable sources. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

To recap, the most pressing question that has been raised repeatedly has been how to present the ambiguous date of the establishment or consolidation of the Diocese of Rome, and how to present the conflicting evidence regarding its link to the ministry of Peter. Also of interest are the New Testament activities, currently alluded too in the "Doctrine/Apostolic" section, and the link between the Apostles and bishops. There is also an informal request for comments regarding potentially reducing the entire history section to a summary of the History of the Catholic Church article. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What next? --Zfish118 (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say the next step would be to decide what information in the history section is critical to understanding where the Catholic Church came from and what can just be left in the History of the Catholic Church article. The Pope discussion below seems like a pretty good place to start since it's very central to the Catholic Church. Luthien22 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

History intro currently presents only the Catholic (doctrinal) view without counterpoint
The intro to the history section presents doctrine (or the Catholic church's view of its history) without counterpoint or historicity comment. Currently the two paragraph intro contains only POV Catholic doctrinal statements, generally beginning with "the Church teaches," suited better for a doctrine section than a history section. I have suggested, at the least, that some counterpoint (three prominent secular history scholars, that I've cited, and a religious authority from another church, also cited) be included to render the presentation NPOV. My suggested text for insertion at the end of the second paragraph (after being corrected by comments from another editor) is only two sentences. It reads,

"The historicity of these claims (one true church, apostolic succession) is debated by other churches as well as historians. According to several historians, including Bart D. Ehrman, Peter was never a bishop, or leader, in Rome, and there were no formal leaders in Rome to succeed to that title, or claim it, for a century."

Thanks for your comments. Piledhighandeep (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's examine what claims are being debated here. I have already explained how apostolic succession of all bishops is being conflated with papal succession in the line of Peter. Which one, or both, do these scholars object to? Elizium23 (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The pages I cited for the three historians refer to the historicity of the "Saint Peter the Apostle and his successors, the Bishops of Rome" claim, as well as the historicity of the apostolic succession of the bishop of Rome, (and also discuss the historicity of justifications for primacy for the bishop of Rome). The religious authority I cited discusses the "one true church" claim. Apostolic succession, primacy, and "one true church" are the current focus of the history section intro. Piledhighandeep (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Piledhighandeep: the current introduction to the history section is doctrine, not history, and simply does not belong here. It should be substituted with a summary of the most important points of the section. Alex2006 (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is one paragraph explaining what the Catholic Church says is it's history (specifically commenting that it is what the Church teaches), and then 27 paragraphs on the verifiable history of the Church. I don't think there's any problems. Achowat (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We are talking right now about the two paragraph introduction section, which is Catholic doctrine covering the first century of Chrisitanity without counterpoint. Piledhighandeep (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no difficulty in stating that many churches claim to be the one true church. In the interests of balance, all such church articles should contain a similar boiler plate to that effect. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Boiler plate disclaimers are discouraged by Wikipedia editorial policy. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do we need a counterpoint at all? It states that the Church believes some things about itself.  This is indisputable, completely NPOV fact.  The Church DOES believe those things about itself.  And there is no opposing pov on this particular issue - every other religion agrees that the Church believes those things about itself.  If the article stated the Church's beliefs about their own origins as truth without counterpoint, THEN there would be a problem.Farsight001 (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Farsight001 I definitely think you right about NPOV, but the reason this issue was brought up is because in articles on other Christian Churches that make such claims (eg. the Eastern Orthodox Church), mention is made that the Church in question is one of the many Churches that makes such a claim. If these other articles are doing it, should this article about the most well known of the Churches to make this claim also present the claim in that way? I don't really have an opinion on this issue either way; just presenting food for thought. Luthien22 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the other articles are the ones with the problem including such information. That's the way I see it.  I would also point out that the style in other articles clearly tries to be neutral.  I saw no such attempt with the tone of the added statements by piledhigheranddeeper in this article.Farsight001 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Total rewrite (of history lead) needed
I support rewriting the section lead from scratch in a neutral, encyclopedic style. I caution against undo weight for counter claims, but would like to see stronger sources overall here. I have stripped most of the disputed doctrinal material, as most of it was poorly sourced anyways. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You, and anyone else, should not really be editing the disputed material until the dispute is resolved (save for grammar errors and BLP issues). Please self-revert for now.  Policy, as I'm sure you know, strongly suggests that disputed material STAY in the article while the issue is discussed, unless there has been a recent change of policy I don't know about.Farsight001 (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the edit by Zfish118 can be defended. It leaves in the article what can be taken to be acceptable to all, so as to concentrate discussion on the part that is under dispute. Zfish118 has not simply deleted the disputed text, which would certainly be blameworthy: Zfish118 has instead moved it here, where perhaps it should in any case be quoted, so as to let editors more easily see what is under discussion.  I of course recognize that I may be wrong in what I have said.
 * In any case, it would be very interesting to learn the view of User:Piledhighandeep on the Zfish118-revised text. Is the omission of that paragraph enough?  Esoglou (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it couldn't be defended. I was just pointing out that he should not have edited anything out of the article while the discussion is ongoing.  I think WP:WRONGVERSION, if I recall, is the applicable concept.  We can't just all continue editing the section we're trying to discuss.  It makes things confusing.  Hence, I have invited him to self-revert to the version of the article that existed when the issue arose.Farsight001 (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, WP:WRONGVERSION is not the right place. I'll have to hunt down what I was thinking of.  Still, it remains silly to be editing the article section in question while discussing the merits of that section.  Any time anyone says "as the article stands now" or something similar is going to cause confusion during the discussion if the article is constantly changing.Farsight001 (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the current text is a reasonable way to deal with the issue. The last sentence "The Apostles of Jesus are claimed by the Catholic Church as early bishops, notably Peter, who is held to be the first Pope, the Bishop of Rome" is a historical claim, presumably, since it is in the lede of the history intro paragraph, and, since church history before 300 is not dealt with again in the following history paragraphs, I think should be balanced with the clause, "although several historians say Peter was never a bishop, or leader, in Rome, and there were no formal leaders in Rome to succeed to that title, or claim it, for a century." (Followed by the citations to the 3 historians, Duke professor Ehrman, Sorbonne professor Cullmann, and Cambridge professor Chadwick [12], [13], and [14] above.) Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the Catholic Church makes the claim attributed to it. I have started a new section below to allow anyone who disagrees with me to discuss it.  Esoglou (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Piledhighanddeep - I think you've been asked before - why should we include these three sources over many others? You include the fact that they are professors and where they teach as though it lends weight to their claims.  It doesn't matter.Farsight001 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I've answered before (in the RfC itself). The NPOV problem here is that the history intro has only one POV, the Catholic Church's. The historians I've cited, from three different countries and both secular and religious backgrounds, introduce another POV, thus rendering the passage neutral. Does that answer your question? This is not a minority view among historians. Piledhighandeep (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The edits I made were edits that I had been contemplating for a while, and feel are strongly due to multiple issues with sources and content. The history section should be neutral with regard to doctrine, which is complicated by many of the primary sources from this era being intimately intertwined with doctrine (New Testament writings, etc).  The previous incarnation relied almost solely on doctrinally based sources to discus history, and there were often tenuous contentions between the what the sources say and what the article text claimed.  I focused on poorly sourced claims for removal first.  I think that some inclusion of supernatural events the Church might still be appropriate, if backed by scholarly commentary regarding the differing interpretations of these events.  The critical analysis of the church's doctrinal claims should be summarized. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As an interim measure, I would support adding the disclaimer in a footnote, so that at least these sources are available to the reader until an appropriately thorough lead/early history section can be developed. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What need for the disclaimer, Zfish118, after your removal of what it was meant to disclaim? Apologies for probably misunderstanding you.  Esoglou (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I simply meant that the sources add valuable insight, but require context in the article that is lacking currently. Not all disputed content has been removed; the claims of succession from the apostles remains and Peter as first pope remains.  These are not disputed strongly enough to disclaim in the body of the article, but a footnote describing the minority opposing opinion held by some scholars might still be appropriate. --Zfish118 (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your statement that seems (wrongly?) to say Peter was the first bishop of Rome remains. Piledhighandeep disputes that strongly. Perhaps less strongly, I too question it.  Even what you say clearly and explicitly in that edit, and that you have just repeated here, that "Peter was the first pope" is questionable.  One definition of "pope" is "successor of Peter".  Peter wasn't his own successor.  "Pope" is also defined as "bishop of Rome".  It is questionable whether any apostle was a bishop.  They carried out functions that were later those of bishops, but that does not mean they were bishops.  What need is there to include that expression, which would need a whole section to discuss it?  The Pope is viewed by (pre-Protestant-Reformation) Christians as the successor of Peter the apostle, but that does not have to mean that he is successor to Peter the bishop.  Esoglou (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I offer that "first" applies to both "Pope" and "Bishop of Rome", while leaving ambiguous the status as bishops of other apostles. I have addressed other related points below in "Apostles and Bishops". --Zfish118 (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Peter is the first Bishop of Rome. As taught and proven by the Catholic Church. Elizium23 (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Apostolic (Doctrine subsection)
Much of the doctrinal content from the History section lead was a repeat from content in the the Apostolic section. I added several critical details, such as Pentecost, to this section. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Section needed: Four Marks of the Church
This article is lacking information on the Four Marks of the Church. In other words, the Catholic Church teaches that she is "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic". As to the "Apostolic" mark, this is being discussed in part on this page. I suggest that any discussion of apostolic succession also include discussion of the One true church claim, the Catholic claim to holiness, and the universality of the Catholic Church. Elizium23 (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the "Apostolic" subsection could be expanded or revised to discus the other marks. --Zfish118 (talk) 6:17 18 October 18 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkow88 (talk • contribs)

Apostles and bishops
The present text says; "The Apostles of Jesus are claimed by the Catholic Church as early bishops, notably Peter, who is held to be the first Pope, the Bishop of Rome." Although it is commonly said within the tradition to which Piledhighandeep obviously belongs that Peter was the first bishop of Antioch and also of Rome, that Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, etc., Piledhighandeep probably does not believe that, as a Church. the Eastern Orthodox Church actually makes that claim. What the present text says is not in fact claimed by the Catholic Church. The sentence should be changed to something like: "The Catholic Church holds that the Church's bishops, headed by the bishop of Rome, have succeeded as a body to the body of the apostles, headed by the Apostle Peter." That seems to be the teaching of Lumen gentium, 22, which says that the college of apostles is not at all the same thing as the college of bishops, which is its successor. Esoglou (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I have restored an earlier version of the sentence in question; I did not intend to make the significant change in meaning that I apparently had introduced. The sentence, I have bolded above now reads: "The church interprets the Confession of Peter found in the three Synoptic Gospels[note 12] as Christ's designation of Saint Peter the Apostle and his successors, the Bishops of Rome to be the temporal head of his Church. It teaches that all Catholic bishops can trace their lineage back to the apostles, according to their ordination, by the doctrine of apostolic succession." @Esoglou, I thank you for pointing out the change in meaning.  --Zfish118 (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with this phrasing. I made an interim edit, changing "early bishops" to "early leaders", but do not oppose replacing the sentence. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand to Catholic believers it may be surprising that someone could support NPOV without an agenda, but I am not Orthodox and do not have an agenda (besides NPOV). This is a history section, and what I am, is a historian. Your speculations seem to indicate that this disagreement is to some editors a partisan one, but I am suggesting that it should be based in facts and scholarship (as fits a history section). I still think the historians I mentioned need to be cited, since they dispute the historicity of an apostolic succession from the first followers of Jesus (the apostles) to the hierarchy that was later created for the Catholic church. The overall issue is that statements of Catholic doctrine on the evolution of the early church, without historians' opposing views concerning that time period, is not NPOV history, and not, I think, suitable for a history section. Piledhighandeep (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not about being offended as Catholics; this is about maintaining neutrality of the article; these sources, while themselves reliable, do not provide "balance" to the article. Rather, the existing sources are completely inadequate, and these sources would appear to tip the scale drastically away from the "church's" POV.  Such a shift in tone must itself be carefully source if this did indeed reflect a scholarly consensus that entirely rejects the church's claim.  My understanding, however, is that mainstream interpretations are more nuanced.   --Zfish118 (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact mainstream secular historians (like Bart D. Ehrman cited above) believe that the early (formerly Jewish) disciples of Jesus (the apostles) were led by James, Jesus' half-brother, and not Peter. This is recorded by early church fathers (see the article on James's life) as well as gospels later condemned by the Catholic Church and destroyed. There was, as is recorded in the New Testament, a dispute between this (formerly Jewish) core of disciples and newer non-Jewish convert communities through the Empire (over the necessity of circumcision and other Jewish traditions), which is well known (since it is in the New Testament) and has a Catholic doctrinal explanation of, again, dubious historicity. Much more can be read on this in the sources I gave, all three mainstream historians. In any case, I think we should add a clause, "although the historical accuracy of this is disputed" (with citations) to the the end of your proposal. The fact that most people still believe much of the doctrine is mainstream history can be attributed to centuries of church revisionism and out right destruction of primary sources, only recently being rediscovered, leading to a pop-culture not yet aligned with present historical scholarship. Piledhighandeep (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would prefer elaboration on the history of the Papacy and the role of James; summarized here, and expanded significantly in "History of the Catholic Church". A disclaimer that many scholars disagree with the church's interpretation is inadequate, even if cited.  Claims that the Church covered up or "destroyed" history must very vigorously documented; this must be documented as reflecting wide consensus, or at least held by a credible minority. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Nag Hammadi library was condemned as heretical (see Easter letter). The church records this itself. This is too specific for this article obviously, but since you asked. (An over-zealous revisionist culture in the early Roman church can be seen in the high-level internal forgeries Donation of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals that were used to advance the Rome church's arguments for centuries, but were shown definitively to be forgeries in the Renaissance.) Piledhighandeep (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I just add that the sentence "The Catholic Church holds that the Church's bishops, headed by the bishop of Rome, have succeeded as a body to the body of the apostles, headed by the Apostle Peter", regardless of it's accuracy, is some objectively terrible writing. "Have succeeded as a body to the body"? I'm trying my best to parse that, but it would appear that you mean to say that "the Church holds that the Apostles were the first in a line of what are now calle Bishops, led by Peter as the Pope now leads the Bishops". Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems functionally no different from the current language, except far more dense a way to phrase it. Achowat (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To Piledhighandeep my apologies for linking Piledhighandeep's insertion of the word "Orthodox Catholic Church" (still in the article, although not based on the cited sources) with another editor's insistence some time back that this is the only (official) name of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I know this was not your intention, but an edit of that kind does give the impression of polemics for the sake of polemics, ignoring and indeed distorting the valid statement that the cited sources make: that, after the break, the eastern side stressed the word "orthodox" (without at all renouncing the claim to be also catholic), and the western side stressed the word "catholic" (without at all renouncing the claim to be also orthodox).  Will you perhaps be so good as to remove the word you added?  Esoglou (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made bold to make the correction myself. Esoglou (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To User:Achowat: It seems that the phrase must be adjusted to avoid having people think it has the meaning you attribute to it. It does not mean that the apostles were first in a line of what are now called bishops.  The bishops are not apostles in all but name.  They are not the same thing at all.  The phrase means that, though the Bishop of Yourplace is not the successor of any individual apostle, he is a constituent member of the group, the college, the body, that, taken corporately, not individually, is the successor of the group, taken corporately, of the apostles.  Can you suggest a better wording?  Esoglou (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This source1, which bears a Nihil Obstat, holds that it is a church teaching that Peter established his ministry as bishop in Rome, and that his successors bear the dual tiles of "Bishop of Rome" and "Pope" (the document also alludes to historical writings and archeology that support this notion, but I wish to address firstly the church's teaching regarding the matter). In light of this source and similar, perhaps "early leaders" ought to be changed back to "early bishops"; I still support a footnote bringing up historical objections to this claim. 1("Was Peter in Rome?" Catholic Answers. Nihil Obstat 10 Aug 2004. Imprimatur 10 Aug 2004.)
 * I use "church teaching", rather than "doctrine" to explicitly distinguish between the degree to which the church requires such belief; As of yet, I have not found evidence that this is a mandatory belief, rather than a non-conflicting belief (the minimum standard for a Nihil Obstat). The Catechism, for instance, uses only the language of "successor to Peter", without explicitly naming Peter a bishop or even Pope . --Zfish118 (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A nihil obstat and an imprimatur, you should know, do not guarantee that the contents are Church teaching. They do not guarantee even that the persons granting them do not disagree with the contents.  All they guarantee is that the contents do not contradict Church teaching.  Quite a different matter.  On this matter, the Church has no teachingEsoglou (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To User:Zfish118 I would suggest adding this sentence to the end of your history intro paragraph. "Historians do not find evidence for a direct connection between the Apostles of Jesus, who some historians believe were led by James the Just, not Peter, and the hierarchical structure established for the Roman church a century later."  With citations I have given from professors Cullmann (Sorbonne), Bart D. Ehrman (Duke), and Henry Chadwick (Cambridge), to which we could add Robert Eisenman (Cal State). Piledhighandeep (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I now concur that the church has no teaching regarding the historical claim that Peter and the Apostles functioned as modern bishops. The section lead should reflect the language of succession spoken of in the catechism.  I am not convinced that the "lack of link" is the majority consensus among historians.  I do not oppose a footnote describing this apparent minority opinion, at least until consensus here on Wikipedia can determines if a version in the text of the article would be appropriate. @Piledhighandeep, you are free to be WP:BOLD, and add the passage you wish yourself; it is only my opinion as an editor that it will prove less controversial if added as a footnote for now.  --Zfish118 (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I do not claim any ownership to the section lead. My contribution was to remove unsourced material, not introduce new controversial unsourced material.  My attempt was to summarize the existing historical claims that were already found in the lead regarding Peter and succession of the Popes.  I did not intend to introduce any new claim, although I appear to have done so by misinterpreting what was previously said.  If I made errors in that summary, I defer to anyone who wishes to correct them. I have removed the controversial sentence I added, restoring an equivalent portion from the original. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. The statement is not a "minority" opinion among historians. I've cited major representatives of three nation's historians. (For instance, Chadwick was Regius chair at both Oxford and Cambridge.) I can give more scholars. It seems to me what is not in dispute is that, by definition, the Catholic Church's teachings on its own history are not NPOV history. It seems that most of the above Talk discussion is about Catholic doctrine/teachings, and makes no mention of historians, and what they say historical sources tell us about the early Catholic church's history. I think, since this is a history intro, that should be the focus. Piledhighandeep (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Who cares that they are major representatives of three different nations? You cited three.  If all you have are three and there are thousands of scholars, then, by definition, they are a minority and need to be treated as such by the weight their ideas are given in the article.  You don't need evidence that qualified scholars hold these positions.  You need evidence that a significant percentage of relevant qualified scholars hold these positions.Farsight001 (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Scholarship not a "minority opinion"
This section is to address the status of the claims regarding the historicity of the church's version of events shared by User:Piledhighandeep; whether or not are not these are a "minority" opinion among historians. Piledhighandeep rightly points out that this has not been addressed yet. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, I would like to see more quoted commentary from the claim of "no direct link" from and apostles, and the claim that the Roman hierarchy was established "a century later", rather than focus on James, who is the undisputed head of the Jerusalem church. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "It is worth pointing out that when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he gives no indication that there is any single leader of the church there, just as there were not single bishops over any of the churches that Paul addressed in his letters in the 50s. More telling still, some sixty years after Paul we have another letter written to the church in Rome, this time by the soon-to-be-martyred Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, who has been sent under armed guard to face the wild beasts in the Roman Forum. Even though Ignatius presupposes that there are single bishops in each of the other six letters that he writes (for example, to the Ephesians and the Smyrneans), when he writes to Rome he does not presume this at all, but instead speaks to the entire congregation, never mentioning any one person in charge of the church. Somewhat before Ignatius's time, and soon thereafter, we have two writings from Christians who actually resided in Rome. Both attest to a situation in which the Roman church was not under the leadership of a single individual, the bishop. The book of 1 Clement was written sometime in the mid-90s CE. This is some thirty years after Peter's death, which the author knows about and mentions (1 Clement 5:4). The letter was allegedly written by that very Clement whom later tradition was to call the Roman bishop. Yet it seems to assume that the churches at that time were run not by individual leaders but by a board of presbyters. The letter, in fact, is addressed to a situation in Corinth in which the presbyters have been ousted from office in some kind of church coup. The Roman Christians (not a bishop) write to try to redress the situation by having the older presbyters reinstated in office. Another writing, from after Ignatius's day, also was produced in the city of Rome; this is the apocalypse known as the Shepherd of Hermas. Hermas was a Roman Christian living probably near the middle of the second century.(cited) In his writing, he mentions Clement--but not as a bishop. Rather, Clement is named as a kind of foreign correspondent for the church (Shepherd 8, 3). More telling still, Hermas speaks of the "presbyters" and the "bishops" of the church, but never of a solitary bishop over the entire congregation. It was only with the passage of time that the Christian churches developed the hierarchical structures that came to characterize their organization by the end of the second century, where there was one bishop over each church, under whom served a board of elders (or presbyters) and deacons. It appears that the Roman church itself was organized more loosely in its early years, probably because the church consisted of a large number of congregations of Christians who met separately in the homes of some of their wealthier members, scattered throughout the city. Each of these so-called house churches probably had somebody in charge, likely the person who owned the house and provided the space. Eventually these churches would band together to make common cause. And when they did so, they appointed leaders who would be in charge of all the communities found throughout the city. But this was a development that did not transpire until the middle of the second century. Peter, in short, could not have been the first bishop of the church of Rome, because the Roman church did not have anyone as its bishop until about a hundred years after Peter's death."  (Bart D. Ehrman p. 83, see citation above) Piledhighandeep (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Quoting one person does not establish that that person's position is not a minority one. Quoting three or ten also does not do this.Farsight001 (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Editing during a dispute
May I once again point out that editing a disputed section of an article while the dispute is ongoing is HIGHLY DISCOURAGED and ask you guys to flipping STOP doing it? This is getting more and more ridiculous and its impossible to offer suggestions and read the discussion on the talk page and make sense of anything. Provide your proposed changes here and discuss them and AFTER the discussion is concluded and a consensus reached, someone make the changes.Farsight001 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , please refrain from swearing and using uncivil language. You are significantly weakening any argument you are making, and your contributions to this discussion will likely be increasingly overlooked if you continue. (edited from an auxiliary account) --Zfish118 (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would posit that breaking the rules by editing the article to reflect the tone you want while a dispute is ongoing is a far more damaging action to credibility than swearing is.Farsight001 (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the user above removed part of the history intro under consideration without providing it here, I am pasting it below. Currently this single sentence (the last sentence of the history intro paragraph) is the only portion of the history intro containing citations to historians, Piledhighandeep (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Historians do not find evidence for a direct connection between the Apostles of Jesus, who some historians believe were led, along with the early church, by James the Just, not Peter,    and the hierarchical structure established for the Roman church a century later.   "

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piledhighandeep (talk • contribs)
 * I agree with that editing this while it's being disputed is counter productive. Maybe we should lock this article for a week so that it can only be edited by admins so we can just sit down and discuss the POV and historical issues with this article without any risk of edit wars. Any thoughts? Luthien22 (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Zfish118 has been editing without complaint (the current history intro paragraph bears no resemblance to the one when I initiated this RfC), and he suggested I could be "WP:BOLD" if I liked. That is why I put my proposed sentence in (with seven historians cited). I would like to point out that, aside from frequent reverting and swearing in his comments in the history revision page User:Farsight001 has made no substantive contributions to the Talk page discussion. If other users behaved the same, refusing to engage in discussion, WP:CONSENSUS could not work. Can something be done about this user? Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You do have a point about the talk page contributions, but on the basic level of actually trying to get something done, I think User:Farsight001 is right, as far as not editing this until we reach a consensus. Of course, as you pointed out WP:CONSENSUS seems to be failing us. I personally think the best way to solve this is to take this one issue at time, since the discussion at least making progress when we were discussing the one issue in the one section, but simply grew bloated and convoluted once the discussion began to expand to other sections. I'll be posting a full section in a minute with suggestions on how we can actually make progress on this issue, but in the mean time, I think that putting in the information and then taking it out again doesn't seem to be making progress. (P.S. I just reverted some edits of yours on the sole ground that we don't have a consensus yet. That was my only reason and I don't mind you putting the info back once we have a direction since right now we are lost penguins in California looking for ice.)
 * I can't make a substantial contribution to the talk page BECAUSE you guys keep editing the article. It is impossible to keep straight which version of the article you are discussing if the disputed section continues to be edited.  That is precisely WHY you are not supposed to be editing the disputed area until the dispute is concluded.  And I still can't make heads or tales of things because people keep doing it.  What part of "do not edit a disputed article while the dispute is ongoing" don't you people understand?  Its not a personal request, either.  Its a rule of this wiki.Farsight001 (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Confession of Peter
These are two sources that might be of use in constructing the history section lead. They are not appropriate for the current content however:


 * ref name=Kingsbury - Who do you say that I am? Essays on Christology by Jack Dean Kingsbury, Mark Allan Powell, David R. Bauer 1999 ISBN 0-664-25752-6 page xvi


 * ref name=Karris - The Collegeville Bible Commentary: New Testament by Robert J. Karris 1992 ISBN 0-8146-2211-9 pages 885-886
 * "...Finally, in verse 19, Peter is portrayed as the "major-domo" or prime minister in the kingdom proclaimed by Jesus [...]. His exercise of the power to bind and loose [...] will be confirmed by God. The content of that power is not completely clear...."(page 885)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piledhighandeep (talk • contribs)

Please omit (Confession of Peter phrasing)
Could we please agree to omit the following passage?
 * The church interprets the Confession of Peter found in the three Synoptic Gospels [Note] as Christ's designation of Saint Peter the Apostle and his successors, the Bishops of Rome to be the temporal head of his Church. It teaches that all Catholic bishops can trace their lineage back to the apostles, according to their ordination, by the doctrine of apostolic succession. Historians do not find evidence for a direct connection between the Apostles of Jesus, who some historians believe were led, along with the early church, by James the Just, not Peter, [Citations] and the hierarchical structure established for the Roman church a century later.[Citations]

We would keep only this:
 * The Christian religion is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, who lived and preached in the 1st century AD in the province of Judea of the Roman Empire. Catholic doctrine teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community established by Jesus [Citation].

The passage that I propose for deletion makes far from easy reading, and has many question-raising elements. For instance, it isn't the Confession of Peter that is interpreted as stated, but instead the response of Jesus to Peter, reported only in (the heavily discussed). The adjective "temporal" in "the temporal head of his Church" is ambiguous and question-raising. The generic indication "Historians" is misleading (weasel language?) in that it suggests there is scholarly consensus on whatever is meant by the following phrase. If this is about a supposed belief that there is "a direct connection" between the apostles taken jointly and the Church in Rome, rather than for the Church as a whole, it is a straw-man argument - but I suppose that is not what is meant. The citations given do not in fact state that the Apostles of Jesus were led by James the Just.

The second part (from "Historians do not find...") exists only as a response to the first part. I don't think the first part is worth keeping. Why not omit both parts of the text together? If someone agrees with me, please delete the text from the article. It would be best to omit the text permanently, but if there are editors who want it restored, let them discuss and amend it here before restoring it in a revised form. Esoglou (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since a part (only) of this passage has been deleted, I am making bold to delete the whole passage, in the hope that it will instead be discussed here. The part that remained was without citation of a reliable source, apart from links to primary sources.  Esoglou (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources do state "that the Apostles of Jesus were led by James the Just." There were many sources given; I can quote the ones that speak to this, if you can't access the texts. There is "scholarly consensus" among secular historians on these points. The current revised history intro still cites only the Catholic Church and still contains only Catholic doctrine, "Catholic doctrine teaches." This is not the scholarly consensus and by definition not NPOV history. (It is the Catholic POV of the Catholic Church's history.) I think this sentence would have to be deleted or balanced by the consensus of secular and non-Catholic historians to be NPOV history. The lede is a privileged position and the history section lede should, I think, be NPOV history. Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do they? If I am mistaken, I apologize for stating so plainly what I said.  Eusebius speaks of James as head of the church in Jerusalem, not as head of the apostles.  The last ones tell what the Gospel of Thomas and (other) legends say, but do the authors of the books accept what the legends say?  Serious modern books recount the legends about Mary Magdalene without saying that she went to the south of France and died there.  Esoglou (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Gospel of Thomas is no more "legend" than the synoptic gospels, which were, until yesterday, a part of the history lede. It is dated by many scholars to be as old a source (or older) than some synoptic gospels. Are gospels "legends" if the Catholic Church later declared them non-canonical at a time when it was centralizing power? It is POV to consider only sources approved of by the later church (and will by definition only support Catholic doctrine). Your, perhaps Catholic, interpretation of what Eusebius' statement means, is not the interpretation of the historians cited, if you read them. The historians suggest that the early church in Jerusalem was the community of the apostles, and James was their head. I'll copy out the text of one further source, "Peter, under the authority and supervision of James, devoted himself to directing the Christian mission among the Jews. James, as head of the mother church, thus became the most influential and most respected authority in the movement. Some scholars see him as a kind of first pope, exercising effective power over the other churches. Others regard him more as primes inter pares, with little means of imposing an authority which was more moral and spiritual than real outside some churches depending on Jerusalem. This scheme has been defended, with more or less important variants, by numerous Protestant scholars including Oscar Cullmann, Maurice Goguel, Etienne Trocme, Martin Hengel, and Christian Grappe." (from Pierre-Antoine Bernheim, James, Brother of Jesus, p. 192). Piledhighandeep (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While a mere reporting of the Gospel of Thomas is no more a reliable source for Wikipedia than a direct quotation of any of the canonical gospels, you have good sources regarding the view on the position of James the Just as head over the apostles, without perhaps being one of their number. So I withdraw that part of what I said.  Perhaps you can clarify the apparent stating of a "direct connection" between the apostles taken jointly and the specific Church in Rome.  I presume I misunderstood you.  Esoglou (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

In any case, is, effectively, skipping the first two centuries of the church's history, rather than presenting the differing theories about them, the best way to address this? I think some other solution will need to be found, at least for the History of the Catholic Church article, which suffers from the same exact lede issues and in which, presumably, the first two centuries of the church will have to be addressed. Piledhighandeep (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What two centuries? What comes before "Conditions in the Roman Empire facilitated the spread of new ideas. The empire's well-defined network of roads and waterways facilitated travel, and the Pax Romana made travelling safe"?  Esoglou (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Pax Romana is the history of the Roman Empire, not the church. The history of the church begins with "In 313, Emperor Constantine I's Edict of Milan legalized Christianity" or else the vague "persecutions were a defining feature of Christian self-understanding until Christianity was legalised in the 4th century." The church's history and evolution before 300 (two centuries at least) is not now discussed except for the doctrinal statement still found in the history lede, "Catholic doctrine teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community established by Jesus." This is, as stated, the POV of the Catholic Church (doctrine), and not NPOV history, nor the mainstream historical consensus. Piledhighandeep (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Roman Empire was the ambience in which the Christian Church grew and with which, because of refusing recognition to the gods that the Empire accepted, it found itself in conflict. So it is very much part of the history of the Christian Church in the first centuries.  There are other things we can and should add, but not polemically, as in the text that I asked to be provisionally omitted, and not in the manner of an excursus that in Wikipedia would be the subject of a distinct article.  You want the question of episcopacy in Rome to be included.  Why not indeed?  What do you think of including the text now in Pope?  At least as an interim solution.  If you agree, we can see whether others do also.  Esoglou (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Esoglou I agree that that text could be an interim solution. I'd like to add some further citations to it, but it does seem like a possible place to start. Also, I didn't mean to imply Roman empire history shouldn't be there. I agree with you. I was only trying to say that we were losing church specific history from the early period as a result of the attempts to eliminate contentious content. Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Link between Peter and the Bishop of Rome

 * This section was formerly called "A framework"

There are a few points I feel need to be clarified, in order to propose a framework for discussing the link between Peter and the modern Bishops of Rome.

The first is a matter of language; the word "bishop" refers to two related roles: one who holds the highest order of the priesthood, and one who holds the highest leadership role of a diocese. Peter is most certainly held to be a bishop in the first role, as the historical record shows him ordaining others (a right reserved to bishops in Catholic doctrine). Whether he held the second role is a matter of historical debate.

This leads to my second point, which is the Petrine Ministry, the personal mission given to Peter by Jesus. It is a doctrinal point that the modern Bishops of Rome have inherited the Petrine ministry (see Papal Infallibility, where the church's argument is documented to hinge on succession from Peter). How to present the historical circumstance under which (or even if) the Bishops of Rome inherited the Petrine ministry is the controversy here.

If you will indulge, there are a few relevant observations on this point. In order for there to be a Bishop of Rome, there must be a Diocese of Rome. At the time of Peter's ministry, Rome was extremely hostile territory for Christians; so hostile that the Book of Revelation likely documents the Christian struggle there. Some posters here have presented sources that suggested several local, perhaps missionary churches in Rome, but not necessarily a central structure uniting them. This would fit with the dangers of persecution. Peter is also generally believed to have arrived no more than a few years before his martyrdom, limiting the amount of time he had to minister there.

Based on these premises, I offer three broad categories for theories linking the Bishops of Rome to the Petrine Ministry (whatever its nature). The first two categories potentially align with Catholic doctrine, while the third necessitates the church's doctrine to be wrong. None, however, are strictly religious, as Peter's exact role is left undefined. (1) It is plausible, given Rome's significance in Christian lore, that Peter came specifically to establish the modern Diocese of Rome in his short time there, and was thus targeted by the Roman authorities as its leader. (2) It is also plausible that he came to minister to the various churches in Rome, but did not have time to establish a monoepiscopate before his execution. His successor might then inherit the Petrine Ministry, but not the as of yet non-existent Bishopric of Rome (then, when the various churches were consolidated, the successor to the Petrine ministry, if still practicing in Rome, would have been a logical choice for inaugural diocesan bishop.) (3) It is also plausible that Peter's specific authority died with him (or a successor), and future Bishops of Rome claimed succession by mere coincidence of geography. --Zfish118 (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The proposal
I propose that reliable sources regarding the link between Peter and the Bishop's of Rome be identified according to one of the three categories I identified above (in summary: immediate link, delayed link, no link.). As the sources are identified, the proper weighting for each can be determined, and the early Christianity section then be written according to the balance of sources. Providing a "counter point" is not sufficient for a neutral point of view; the views must be presented reflecting trends among the reliable sources.

Discussion should be limited to what the sources state, to avoid making this personal; if source disagrees with one of the numbered categories, the source's author should be presented as holding that position to better transition into article content. If a source proposes a significantly different link, then that should be shared as well. If a category has few or no sources supporting it, then it may be dropped from consideration. Please include a short quote and/or summary of each source, as well as its citation. --Zfish118 (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This thread is meant to address the historical link between Peter and the Bishops of Rome. The question of whether the Church claims as a matter of doctrine or belief would be better discussed above.  A similar, but separate, framework might be set up for the related question of Peter's role. --Zfish118 (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

General comment
Sounds like a proposal for an independent new article, not just a modification of the Catholic Church article. Perhaps it would be best to produce a draft in a sandbox, and invite those interested to contribute there. Esoglou (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is perhaps the natural course if this content dispute is to be meaningfully resolved. The new article, if written, could then be incorporated using summary style into the Catholic Church article.  However, this discussion has dragged on for weeks, and has mostly rehashed the same points over and over.  As an interim step, I propose restoring the disputed content, with a footnote containing the "counterpoint".  I am not convinced that so called "secular" scholars largely dispute the prominent leadership role assigned Peter in the New Testament; this appears to be a credible minority opinion worthy of mention.  The disputed content should be rephrased to avoid unsupported doctrinal claims. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think the best course (within this article) would be to write up a summary of the contents of this new article, use that as the first paragraph talking about either the historic church or the papacy, then have a link to the article that has yet to be written. It's pretty clear from the ongoing discussion that this issue is complex enough that we can't adequately discuss important aspects of it within this article. Luthien22 (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

First bishop of Rome
The Church teaches that Peter is the first Bishop of Rome. Elizium23 (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I may be quite unable to edit Wikipedia for a few days, but I must immediately question this. Where does the cited source say that the Church teaches that Peter was the first bishop of Rome?  The article argues that he was, in spite of arguments to the contrary, but what declaration of the Church does it cite?  Esoglou (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion has become quieter here, but it would be great if someone neutral could apply some of what we've discussed to the first paragraph of the History of the Catholic Church article. Piledhighandeep (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is commonly said that Saint Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Even by Eastern Orthodox.  Take Bishop Kallistos Ware as an example.  I accept that Saint Peter can be called bishop of Rome in an analogous sense, not as we today understand the word "bishop", the sense in which Piledhighanddeep denies it.  (Piledhighanddeep probably would object even to an analogous understanding of the phrase.)  What I question is that the Church teaches that Saint Peter was the first bishop of Rome.  I know of no such declaration by the Church.  Of course, I may be wrong.  If others accept a wording that simply reports what is commonly said, there should be no problem, perhaps not even for Piledhighanddeep.  Esoglou (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a teaching of the Church, according to the patristic record laid out in the Catholic Encyclopedia. This is part of Sacred Tradition. St. Cyprian, Firmilian of Caesarea, Tertullian, Hippolytus, St. Irenaeus, and the poem "Adversus Marcionem" all attest to this constant teaching going back to the second century. Elizium23 (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have trouble believing the Catholic Encyclopedia for some reason, here is the Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, English and Latin text. Search for "primacy". This document "includes all basic texts of Catholic teachings, it is a compendium of faith through the centuries." You will not find extraneous non-teachings in it. Elizium23 (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Catholic Church holds that the Pope is the successor of Peter. That does not mean that the Catholic Church holds that Peter was bishop of Rome, although George Joyce, whom you cite, obviously (from the way he interprets Tertullian and Pope Stephen) thought it does.  Joyce also argues that Irenaeus said Peter was bishop of Rome, but argues explicitly against a scholar who held the opposite point of view.  Tertullian and Firmilian are not Fathers of the Church.  Joyce does not state that his view is Catholic Church teaching.  Your argument that it is Catholic Church teaching is not a Wikipedia-reliable source for stating that it is.
 * Read S. W. J. O'Malley's chapter on "Peter: Bishop of Rome?" He does not accept that Peter was bishop of Rome in the normal sense; but he concludes that, in view of the certainty that Peter, who had preeminence in the early Christian church in general, was in Rome, "Peter can, with qualification but justly, be called the first bishop of Rome.  And if he is the first bishop of Rome, then he is the first pope."  That ought to satisfy you with regard to the reality.  Of course, O'Malley is speaking as a historian.  He too says nothing about a supposed Catholic Church teaching that Peter was bishop of Rome or, for that matter, that he was a bishop.
 * A question for Piledhighanddeep. What need is there to insert into this article speculation on when precisely Rome first had a monoepiscopus, about which there is no Catholic Church teaching?  Putting it in would seem a controversy-seeking irrelevance.  Esoglou (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no need to insert it unless others do. I only see NPOV issues in the history section when the church's specific claims about its history are presented without any counterpoint by non-partisan (secular and non-Catholic) historical scholars. Piledhighandeep (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1
There is no standard, rule, policy, or even suggestion on wikipedia that sources be "secular and non-Catholic". Demanding that they be so is actually the real bias problem here.
 * Shouldn't we be using Catholic sources to say what the Catholics say (as in "Catholics say blah blah blah")? Luthien22 (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly. But that is an abstract question.  Concretely, the actual question here is: "What does the Catholic Church say?"  Esoglou (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point, I think (and there is a rule for not including only one-sided sources, it is called WP:NPOV). Catholic sources are for what Catholic's say, that is called doctrine.  Confusing doctrine with history is the root of the POV problem (see historicity).  Doctrine (what Catholic's say about their history) is not their actually history and presenting only the Catholic POV, without another POV (that of other historical scholars), is not NPOV history.  It is fine for other parts of this article, but not for the history section. Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the article does not state that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. I think that, if anyone wants to discuss some other question about history and/or belief, it should be done under another heading.  Otherwise, this section will wander off in several directions from what it is supposed to be about.  Esoglou (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Esoglou. 1. Tertullian is indeed a Church Father, and although he later assumed positions contrary to the Church, not so his early writings.

2. I assume you want an official document from the current Church, right? Well, I couldn't find anything in English, so I did a search in Latin. This is the first link I found. One source is enough, isn't?

Pope John XXIII's Apostolic Constitution " Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum " (June 29, 1969). Quote: "... in Vaticana Basilica, apud Petri sepulcrum, Apostolorum principis, primique Romae Episcopi..."

Context of the quote: The Pope is speaking about the closing ceremony of a Synod, which took place in the "Vatican Basilica, besides the tomb of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, First Bishop of Rome." This is my translation, free to use google.

You can find the document in the archives for the Vatican for 1960. That is ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS 52 (1960), p. 553 at the end. Here is a link: "www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2052%20[1960]%20-%20ocr.pdf"--Coquidragon (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Piledhighandeep. We know Peter was in Rome. He died in Rome. From Church's writings, we know that many historical figures dating back to the 1st Century considered him first Bishop of Rome. What type of sources do you want? A secular secular source that says so? And which source will that secular source use if not the writings of Church Figures? You can't go NPOV on this, because there is nothing outside of the Church to attest to this, because at the time, nobody else cared. Besides, this is not doctrine, this is not about faith. It is a version of History, without reliable sources against it.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I do not object to including a reference to the fact that Peter is commonly spoken of as the first bishop of Rome, even by popes and saints (John XXIII will do as an example of both), though of course they don't propose it as an article of faith, part of official Church teaching.  In that way it is unlike the teaching that the Pope is Peter's successor.  If you put it in, it must be accompanied by caveats about the sense in which the statement must be taken (and perhaps its authority level).  Information about that sense is given in books by Catholic authors and Catholic publishers, better than "non-Catholic and secular" sources.  Take the example of O'Malley, whom I cited above.  Do you really think that is worthwhile?  I don't, but maybe there is a consensus here for mentioning it.  Where would you insert it in the article?  Esoglou (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2
@Esoglou. "Peter died in Rome," is not an article of faith, it is Church history. "Peter was the first Pope," is not an article of faith, it is Church history. "Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome," is not an article of faith, it is Church history, as it is history that he was also the first bishop of Antioch and Syracuse. "The Pope is Peter's successor," is not an article of Faith. Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome and the 1st Pope. By definition, those that came behind are the successors. This is not doctrine. I really don't get your point. The matter of faith would be what that means in terms of inheriting his primacy. That's another matter.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lumen gentium is one example of a Church document that seems to me to teach as a matter of faith that the Pope is Peter's successor and that thus goes beyond merely calling him "Peter's successor" as people call Peter "the first bishop of Rome". Perhaps I'm mistaken, and the Church does not teach it.  In that case it is, as you say, a matter of history, not faith, and there is no problem with Piledhighandeep adding information from non-Catholic and secular sources about it – in addition to what is in Catholic sources.  Esoglou (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * " 'Peter was the first Pope,' is not an article of faith, it is Church history." Emphatically, no. You are confusing doctrine with true history. See the discussion above.  Most secular historians point out that there was no bishop of Rome in Peter's time and that Peter is not mentioned by early christian writers in Rome as having any role in the church hierarchy there. Piledhighandeep (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This information is, it seems, not known by many of the readers of this page. I do not see how censoring the position of a large number of historians on this point (by not citing them) serves any purpose, except perpetuating this doctrinally inspired popular misconception. Piledhighandeep (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then don't censor the position of a large number of historians. Once again, that some historian are Catholic is NOT a valid reason for excluding them from consideration as a source.Farsight001 (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @Esoglou. I hadn't been here for a while, and rereading the page, I see this is but one of many points being discussed. My sharing was on only on Peter leading the Roman Church, position now called bishop. It has nothing to do with Piledhighandeep questions. Following the discussion, I don't believe the "History" section is the best place to have the "who had primacy" in the apostolic church (vs. James) or what the primacy means (vs. Orthodox), or if the Bishops are or not successors to the apostles. I also don't agree on starting the history of the Catholic Church in 313, since this is biased. There was a hierarchical Church as early as the 1st Century as attested in many writings, and we shouldn't skip 300 years of history just because is inconvenient to POV editors. If that early Church understood bishops as successors of the apostles, not agreeing with this idea doesn't change the fact that they were. Another matter is the question of continuity. Were there breaks? We don't know, although not likely. I do admit the lede needs rewriting in order to stick to historical facts. Also, I think that quoting secular historian doing a reinterpretation of history is not good. If the early Christian writers state it, then it is the Church history, regardless of the reinterpretation of modern historians, many of which are POV.--Coquidragon (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @Piledhighandeep. Your are right. "Peter as the first pope" is not history since the Bishop of Rome did not assume the title pope until much later. What is history is Peter's leadership role. Tertulian (A. D. 160 – 225) in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200) wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement (I add: later a Pope)  was ordained by Peter. ” In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did. Some say, and I agree, that such a comment would only make sense if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome. You say that "that Peter is not mentioned by early christian writers in Rome as having any role in the church hierarchy there." Well, my last two quotes disagree with you. I only share two. I could share more.--Coquidragon (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #3
Read S. W. J. O'Malley's chapter on "Peter: Bishop of Rome?" which I have already cited above. It seems that you and Piledhighandeep and I all accept that presentation. It follows that the three of us have been wasting time and effort on an unnecessary discussion. Esoglou (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually no. I disagree with O'Malley as to the lack of leadership in the Roman Community, and about Peter's role.--Coquidragon (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with O'Malley (not that it matters) up until he begins to speculate that Peter, having been present at some point in Rome (perhaps quite briefly), had a hierarchical role there. In any case other historians point out that there was no leader in Rome for some time after the death of Peter.  Paul was also briefly present in many cities, but he was not the bishop of all of them. Anyway, I have no problem with a Catholic POV being presented as User:Farsight001 wants, as long as the views of other historians are presented too. There is only a neutrality problem if we present only the Catholic view in a history (not Catholic doctrine) section. Piledhighandeep (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @Piledhighandeep. So, instead of coming to a historical source to create your opinion, your opinion designates what you believe from each source. "I agree with O'Malley up until... other historians point out that..." Each historian creates an interpretative story. Picking and choosing makes your position to loose all foundation, since this way you come to inconsistent believes, where you believe A and B, even though A and B are incompatible. You are doing this picking and choosing, and them come here and accuse other editors (Farsight001 for one) of POV? I don't like to go ad hominem. Words, positions, and arguments should weigh on themselves, and not be influenced by who says them. Yet, you really weakened your case with these words. This being said, going back to the arguments themselves, most historian disagree with O'Malley and company. So, having their positions in the History section would be what breaks neutrality, by adding POV historical interpretations.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no problem with it being presented "as I want" because "as I want" is in perfect conjunction with the policies of wikipedia. Having presented as YOU, piledhighanddeep, want, IS a problem, because you, as you have repeatedly suggested, believe that no one who is Catholic should be allowed to be used as a valid source for historical information.  Many Catholics are, in fact, valid sources for historical views because they are historians.  Your desire to exclude them from consideration because of their religion is the POV problem.  Not to mention a little bigoted.Farsight001 (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to close this discussion, which is becoming too heated, and no ripostes should be posted. If anyone has a concrete proposal for a text to insert in the article, they can propose it in a new section. The proposal immediately below is, I think, rather too elaborate, but at least it isn't put simply as a continuation of this discussion. Esoglou (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #4
Ut Unum Sint, paragraph 88. "88. Among all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities, the Catholic Church is conscious that she has preserved the ministry of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, the Bishop of Rome, whom God established as her "perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity" 146 and whom the Spirit sustains in order that he may enable all the others to share in this essential good." Elizium23 (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I skimmed the greeting, and it appears that the Pope used the language of the Bishop of Rome succeeding Peter throughout. Even in the quote above, I believe you may have misread the text; the Bishop of Rome is described as the "ministry" of the "Successor" to Peter.  It is undeniable that Peter is the source of the Pope's authority; this is Church Doctrine.  The reason I am hesitant to say that the church teaches that Peter is the first Bishop of Rome is because this is a historical question; "Bishop of Rome" is a title that includes specific responsibilities that may not have existed in Peter's time.  History is a social science, and not a matter of faith and morals.  The Church would thus have no authority to teach history (although various members of the church have helped preserve and perpetuate the historical record).  The church has helped preserve many works that demonstrate bishop-like authority exercised by Peter and his successor.  Based on the record, scholars have reasonably concluded Peter was the first bishop of Rome.  I really, really, only object to the presenting this conclusion as a teaching of the church (and it was only by participating in this discussion for the past few weeks did I come to hold this position!). --Zfish118 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

While I am thinking of it, I would like to propose a ground rule for this discussion should it continue. I feel that it would be easier to assume good faith if quoted material included commentary. The commentary would help make the argument feel less blunt, and help other poster understand what is being said to better address legitimate concerns. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Logic
I see that people here say that (the Church teaches that) the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Saint Peter. I see also that some of the same people say that (the Church teaches that) Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome. Does that mean that Saint Peter, being Bishop of Rome, was the successor of Saint Peter? Something to reflect on. :-) Esoglou (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would also like to know that if the Bishop of Rome is successor of Peter, then what office did Peter hold? If we say that Barack Obama is the successor of George Washington, we know implicitly that as successor he holds the same office as his predecessor. If Peter was not Bishop of Rome, then what was he, and how did the Bishop of Rome come to be his successor? Elizium23 (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Good answer. It does raise a more serious question.  The President of France is (as ruler of France) the successor of Clovis.  Does that mean Clovis was President of France?  The Bishop of Rome is the successor of Saint Peter.  Does that mean that Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome?  Esoglou (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In " A framework " "The Link between Peter and the Bishop of Rome", I presented an idea that Peter could have ministered in Rome before there was a formal diocesan structure (possibly even martyred before he could establish one); I do not claim this to be true, but to demonstrate that an alternative explanation could exist. "Bishop of Rome" is but one of many titles held by the Pope; it is not necessarily intrinsic to inheriting Peter's supreme authority.--Zfish118 (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It is generally held that Pope Francis's position as successor of Peter is intrinsically linked with being Bishop of Rome, that the position of successor of Peter cannot be transferred to, say, the Archbishop of New York. The position is not directly linked with any of Pope Francis's other titles (take "Primate of Italy", or "Sovereign of Vatican City State").  Hollande is successor of Clovis (or Saint Louis, or Louis XIV) because he is President of France, not because he is Co-Prince of Andorra.  If Clovis was President of France only by analogy, but was not in fact President of France, there is no obstacle to saying that Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome only by analogy, but was not in fact Bishop of Rome.  In that way, Zfish118 is right.  Esoglou (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and the office is passed down. Therefore whoever holds the office is his successor. Sort of like how Queen Elizabeth II is the successor to Queen Elizabeth I. From that view I don't see any logical issues. Luthien22 (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Queen Elizabeth II is the successor of Queen Elizabeth I. Was Elizabeth I therefore Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?   More clearly, since Hollande is the successor of Louis XIV, was Louis XIV therefore President of France?  Since Pope Francis is the successor of Peter, was Peter therefore Bishop of Rome?
 * Is Hollande King of France, as was his predecessor Louis XIV?  Is Pope Francis the chief apostle, as was his predecessor Peter?  Esoglou (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Succession to
"Succession" is normally accompanied by the preposition "to," although is not always necessary to write. When we say the Pope is the successor of Peter, the Catholic use of "successor" here makes reference, first to a position, Bishop of Rome, and then to what that position carries, Primacy. We don't need to specify this every time we use the word "successor." That's common sense. And those examples... Please! Hollande is the successor of Louis XIV as leader of France. Hollande is no King, Louis XIV is no president. If you want to go into technicalities, then Peter was no pope, since the Bishop of Rome assumed the title "Pope" much later. Now, since in today usage, Pope is the Bishop of Rome and Primate of the Roman Catholic Church, we can say Peter was the first Pope, even thought he never knew that word.

Really, this playing with words doesn't make your arguments any stronger. Is Pope Francis the chief apostle? Well, if by apostle you mean, the 12, of course he is isn't. If by apostle you mean a witness to the world of Christ resurrection, then yes Pope Francis is the chief apostle, as he is chief among the apostle within the Catholic Church. The Bible speaks of a bishop as being a good husband. Today, Catholic Bishops are unmarried. Does this mean they are not real bishops? C'mon! This playing with words can go on and one. Words have definition and context. People have common sense. If there is good will, you don't need much more.

As to what applies to the topic at hand, if you disagree that the Roman church had leadership during that time, fine, you have some sources. Nevertheless, most sources do make reference to the Roman Church having leadership. Was it one person? Did they use the word bishop as a title? That's semantic. Peter was a (if not the) leader in the Roman Church. That's well established in most sources (now, it is clear that some disagree). So, was Peter the Bishop of Rome? By today's usage of the word, he was. Did the apostles use the word bishop to refer to themselves? Did the people called them bishops? Probably not. So, were the apostles bishops or not? As we understand what a Bishop is today, of course they were. That's why we say bishops are the successors to the apostles.

On a different, but similar note, until the 9th century, the Pope wasn't the Vicar of Christ, but was called Vicar of Peter. Since we now say Vicar of Christ, the "Vicar of Peter" was replaced with "Successor of Peter." We can also start playing with words as to what this means.--Coquidragon (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hollande is successor to Louis XIV because he holds a position previously held by Louis XIV. What is that post?  That of being ruler of France.  The Catholic Church holds that Pope Francis is successor to Peter because of holding a position previously held by Peter.  What is that post?  The Catholic Church says it is that of being "the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church" (Lumen gentium, 18).
 * The Catholic Church also says that the bishops are successors of the apostles, not that the apostles were bishops.
 * I presume you do not mean to say that "successor of Peter" came into use only as a replacement of "vicar of Peter". For whatever it is worth, this source says 3rd-century Stephen I and 4th-century Damasus I called themselves successors of Peter.  I haven't checked whether it is right.  Esoglou (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A) Wrong. You quote is taken out of context. "... the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God." In this sentence, "Vicar of Christ" is a title of the Pope, used after "Successor of Peter," and before "the visible Head of the whole Church." This is not a definition of teaching, since the sentence is speaking about the bishops.


 * B) If you want a definition of teaching, look at the previous paragraph "(Speaking about the Apostles)... He willed that their successors, namely the bishops , should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles , and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion." This sentence indirectly reflects the idea a "bishop" as successor of Peter.


 * C) If you want a explicit definition, without changing documents, look at #20, "And just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors ..." Who are his successors? In this document, "successor of Peter" is used 11 times. Of those, it is used as a noun 7 times, which don't help to understand what it means. Yet, in addition, it is also used 4 times as a description of the Roman Pontif:
 * "St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together;"
 * "the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head;"
 * "A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter ; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them;"
 * "The Roman Pontiff, a s the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful."


 * D) Also, if you want official teaching, let's go to the CCC, under the heading "The episcopal college and its head, the Pope," which states:
 * "When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [the apostles] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them." Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another." (#880)
 * "The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."" (#882)
 * "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." (#883)


 * So, when the Church teaches that the Pope is the "Successor of Peter," it means in his being the Bishop of Rome, in his being the Roman Pontiff.


 * As to my other comments that you make reference, a. I know the Church doesn't teach that the apostles were bishops. I was saying that, by definition, the Church's tradition gives to the Apostles the title of "First Bishop" of the different churches they founded and/or lead. b. I meant that since the title "Vicar of Peter" stopped being used, and "Vicar of Christ" started to be used, the addition of "Successor of Peter" is normally used alongside. ("Vicar of Christ" with capital "V," since all bishops are "vicars of Christ," and one Father of the Church also called all Christians "vicars of Christ.")--Coquidragon (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * When the Church teaches that the Pope is the Successor of Peter, it doesn't means in his being the Bishop of Rome, in his being the Roman Pontiff. He can be Peter's successor not in being Bishop of Rome but in being visible Head of the whole Church.  As Hollande is Louis XIV's successor not in being President of France but in being ruler of France.
 * A) I presume you do not deny that the successor of Peter, at present Pope Francis, is "the Vicar of Christ (in the sense in which Lumen gentium used the title), the visible Head of the whole Church".
 * B) "their successors, namely the bishops" says that the bishops are the successors of the apostles, distinguishing the bishops from the apostles, not that the bishops are apostles nor that the apostles are bishops. "He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles" is altogether different from saying: "He placed Blessed Peter. Bishop of Rome, over the other bishops."
 * C) "the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles" – What was that office? Was it the office of being Bishop of Rome?  Or was it the office of being the visible Head of the whole Church?  The Roman Pontiff is indeed the successor of Peter as visible Head of the whole Church, but the document nowhere says that Peter was Roman Pontiff.  i) Peter and the other apostles constitute one college of apostles: Peter too was one of the apostles, part of that body, not extraneous to it.  And the Bishop of Rome, who is Peter's successor (as visible Head of the whole Church), and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together as one body: as Peter, visible head of the whole Church, was a member of the college of the apostles, so the Bishop of Rome, visible head of the whole Church, is part of the body of the bishops, not extraneous to it.  How does this say Peter was Bishop of Rome?  ii)"the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head."  So too French laws have no effect unless signed by the President of France, the successor of Louis XIV.  "A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter ; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them."  So too the French National Assembly is not legal unless accepted by the successor of Louis XIV, and it is the prerogative of the President of France to convoke the National Assembly. iv) "The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter (rather than just as Bishop of Rome), is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful."
 * D) "When Christ instituted the Twelve, he constituted the apostles (including Peter, the visible Head of the whole Church) in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them. Just as by the Lord's institution, St. Peter, visible Head of the whole Church, and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor as the present visible Head of the whole Church, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another." "The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor (current visible Head of the whole Church), is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."  "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor (current visible Head of the whole Church), as its head."
 * None of these statements about the powers of the Bishop of Rome, who is Peter's successor, say that Peter was Bishop of Rome, any more than statements about the powers of the President of France, who is Louis XIV's successor, say that Louis XIV was President of France.
 * Of course, because of their special office, any apostle was by analogy equivalent to bishop in whatever Christian community he happened to be, for as long as he was there, even if only passing through; that doesn't mean that he was bishop of that town as we now understand being bishop of a particular town. In spite of what you say, I don't think that, outside of Vatican II documents, "Vicar of Christ" is normally accompanied by "successor of Peter".  Esoglou (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Are we talking about oranges, or about apples? I am confused here. What are we discussing now? There are several questions being asked at the same time. We can argue if Peter was "Bishop of Rome," or we can argue what "Successor of Peter" means. All your arguments against my latest answers are arguments against the idea of Peter being Bishop of Rome, yet that wasn't the question I was answering. "What does the Church teaches about "Successor of Peter?" The answer: The Church teaches that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter as leader of the Church. Whether Peter was or wasn't a Bishop of Rome (which is what you are denying) is another question, related yes, but different nonetheless.


 * EDIT: I have written a long answer. Yet, I find that the language I used opens the door for straw man attacks. So, I'll cross it out and leave it just because I did take the time to write it. For the Church, Peter's primacy was inherited through the leadership of the Roman Church. We know Peter was in Rome. He died in Rome. He was a leader (if not the leader) of the Roman Church. The Church understands the leader of the Roman Church, now called Bishop of Rome, as inheritor of Peter primacy. Since the Church do calls Peter the first Bishop of Rome, the current Bishop of Rome inherits his primacy. If he wasn't actually called the "Bishop of Rome" at the time (your position), this doesn't change the fact that the next (first?) Bishop of Rome inherited his primacy, as leader of the Roman Church (under whichever title you want to give him).


 * Was Peter actually Bishop of Rome? That's one question. What does the "Successor of Peter" means? That is a different question. Would the current Bishop of Rome still have primacy if Peter wasn't the Bishop of Rome? That's a third question. All of them need to be addressed separately.


 * Pope Francis the successor of Peter in what sense? The Pope inherits Peter's primacy through his being Roman Pontiff, Bishop of Rome. Using your own quote, Hollande is successor of Louis, but Louis was no president. The Roman Pontiff is the Successor of Peter, again, whether or not Peter was Bishop of Rome. Peter's primacy as leader of the Apostles (leader of the Church) is inherited by the Pope is his being Bishop of Rome. Now, if you want to say that "Leader of the Church" is a position equivalent as "Leader of France," then the analogy Apostle/King and Bishop/President is also accepted. Then, Pope Francis is Successor of Peter to the position of "Leader of the Church," as he is the current Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter as leader of the Church.


 * In a previous thread, I gave you quotes that describe Peter as a leader (if not the leader) of the Roman Church. Was he Bishop of Rome? Well, was any Apostle called Bishop at that time? This is not the question I was currently debating. If I am was off track, I'm sorry! The topics have become very confusing for me. I know the topic, but not necessarily the question.


 * First, decide what the question is, then debate that one question. The two might be related, but they are not the same question. This might become a straight out Straw Man's fallacy.
 * --Coquidragon (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, "Vicar of Christ" as a title for the Pope is assumed much later in the Church's history, much after the primacy of Rome was accepted. So, when you say that the Pope is successor of Peter as Vicar of Christ, well, that is not the language you would find during the first 500 years of the history of the Church. The Pope was Vicar of Peter, was successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome, was successor of Peter as leader of the Church. At that time, Peter was the Vicar of Christ, all bishops were vicars of Christ, even the Holy Spirit was Vicar of Christ. Today, we still define all bishops as vicars of Christ.--Coquidragon (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought you were saying that the expression "successor of Peter" used of the Bishop of Rome showed that Peter was Bishop of Rome. I replied with the analogy that the expression "successor of Louis XIV", applicable to the President of France, does not show that Louis XIV was President of France.  If you were not saying what I thought, I have no observation to make within the present discussion of whether the Church teaches that Peter was Bishop of Rome.  (I spoke of the distinction between "apostle" and "bishop" only because of observations by you.)  Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Implicitly accepts versus explicitly teaches
Regarding the issue of "The church (teaches) Peter to be the first Bishop of Rome" provokes such strong responses, I don't think anybody denies that the church implicitly accepts Peter as the historical first Bishop of Rome; the issue is solely that the church does not explicitly teach this anywhere.

The church consistently uses language speaking of succession in all official documents; the article should simply reflect this language when discussing church teaching. It would, however, be accurate to say "many historian and church apologists" believe Peter to be the first bishop. Clergy, and even Popes, have described Peter, at least informally, as the first Bishop. It would be appropriate, too, to summarize the historical arguments (with a note regarding the opposing view). The problem is simply that Wikipedia cannot state that the church officially teaches this, because it is not explicitly stated. --Zfish118 (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for summary of the name debate
Could someone possibly write a brief and (ideally) neutral summary of the name debate ("Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church") and post it permanently on this talk page? As a non-RC British expat and a latecomer to Wikipedia I was rather surprised to discover that the article name is "Catholic Church". I know there's the archive, but there's just too much material there for someone like me who doesn't want to reopen the whole can of worms, but would like to know how and when the decision was taken.

Another question: Are there any agreed guidelines on the use of Catholic/Roman Catholic in articles not related to (Roman) Catholicism and/or Christianity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GroupCohomologist (talk • contribs) 14:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Addressing your second question first, I don't know of any guidelines to be used in other articles. As to the main question, Wikipedia's criteria for naming articles is "common name." The common name of the Roman Catholic Church in the English language is Catholic Church, notwithstanding other churches also belonging to and/or considering themselves part of the (C)atholic Church (Orthodox, Anglican, etc.), or belonging to and/or considering themselves part of the (c)atholic church (as in universal church), like most (if not all) Christian denominations. The "Roman" in this article is understood as meaning "under the Roman Pontiff," which includes all 23 rites particular churches in full communion with the Pope (Latin Church + 22 Eastern Churches rites ), although it is often misunderstood to mean "Roman" rite and/or "Latin" Church, which would exclude the abundant diversity of liturgical rites and/or the 22 Eastern Churches that form part of the Catholic Church. I don't know if I missed anything. I don't know when the decision was made, but this is indeed a hot topic which every so often comes back to this talk page to be debated. I believed it was by consensus, but it could have also being the decision of an arbitrator. I don't know. Hope this helps. [Edited as per following comment.]--Coquidragon (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Reading Roman Catholic (term) should help you understand., those are not Rites, they are Churches. A Rite is the liturgical and theological patrimony of a particular tradition, i.e. Roman, Alexandrian, Byzantine, etc. There are far fewer than 23 Rites in the Catholic Church, because many Eastern Churches share the same one, especially Byzantine. It is very common to confuse Rite and Church and even Church documents refer to e.g. "Latin Rite" but this is a confusing hybrid term; the correct terms are "Latin Church" and "Roman Rite". Elizium23 (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * @Elizium23. You are very right! I don't know how this could have slipped. Sorry! I have fixed my original post. I couldn't stand I made such a mistake.--Coquidragon (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment, reading the talk page, let me commend all editors on the civil debate that I had the pleasure to read. Hopefully a good solid consensus can be built here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed History/Early Christianity text
Below is a possible rephrasing that may work as an intermediate while larger issues are worked out. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Commentary

 * Working Draft found at Talk:Catholic Church/Proposed early history

My main aim here was to specifically provide citations for each claim, which were woefully lacking in the original. With proper citations, the reader can better judge the reliability and nature of the information shared. I specifically skirted detailing the "link" between Peter and the Bishops of Rome, which is in need of further resolve. I incorporated the "counterpoint" proposed by Piledhighdeep as a footnote (which may need some adjustment to reflect the phrasing in the body). I also added a potential "historical response" where the historicity may be better elaborated in the future. I included a possible elaboration on Peter's role in the Pentecost, but am not certain if it would be needed. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This text raises a number of questions (even apart from the additional ones raised by the complicating stricken-out additions). The perhaps most basic difficulty is that it presents the college of bishops as a sort of appendage to the papacy, although Church teaching, as in Lumen gentium, presents the pope in the context of the college of bishops, which is the successor group to that of the apostles.  In the same way, your text presents Peter in isolation from the group of the apostles, although it is Church teaching that the Church is built "to stand firm on apostolic foundations" (Roman Missal, Preface II of Apostles), not just on Petrine foundations.  Esoglou (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. I have made some revisions. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Overall it looks good (especially the presence of sources), but a sentence or two explaining what the rest of the apostles did in connection with Peter would be nice. Maybe a revised version of the paragraph that was struck out? Luthien22 (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Luthien22. To facilitate further discussion, I have prepared a public draft here: Talk:Catholic Church/Proposed early history.
 * , I am sorry that we must continue this, but the source here simply does not specifically state that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.  I personally do not dispute him as bishop, but if the Church claimed this, it would specifically claim it.  The Catechism is written very carefully; the omission of such an important claim is not accidental.  I will not rehash this point here further; I refer you to the discussion started above. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Church teaches this specifically, and I have provided multiple sources to back it up. Why can't you accept reliable secondary sources which show the teaching? Elizium23 (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is another source for the teaching: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome Elizium23 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a GREEK ORTHODOX source for the teaching: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523 Elizium23 (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This thread is not the appropriate forum. I again refer you to the discussion above, which does not appear to have reach any consensus on the matter, yet. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought we were discussing here the proposed wording. I am objecting vehemently to the verbal gymnastics in the proposed draft that struggles mightily to avoid presenting the clear and unambiguous teaching of the Church. Elizium23 (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Elizum and I have clashed on this point before. I have already addressed the issue of whether the church teaches Peter to be the first Bishop of Rome. I recuse myself from further discussion or enforcement of the matter., I encourage you to work towards consensus on this matter. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I wish to draw attention to some recent edits in the last paragraph of the draft:


 * In the account of the Confession of Peter found in the Gospel of Matthew, Christ designates Peter as the "rock" upon which Christ's church will be built. The Church considers the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, to be the successor to Saint Peter, based upon-extra biblical accounts of Peter's ministry and martyrdom in Rome.  Scholars and Catholic Apologists point to historical evidence indicating Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.  Some scholars, though, question whether there was formal leadership in the early Roman Church, and thus whether there is a formal link between Peter and the modern Papacy.

I wish to expressly invite others to contribute to this public draft. --Zfish118 (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * CCC 737 does not say: At Pentecost, the Apostles are believed to have received the Holy Spirit, preparing them for their mission in leading the church
 * Boring says the account, the story, in Acts, centred successively on Peter and Paul, moves from Jerusalem to Rome (after much travelling in between); he doesn't say: "Acts further documents a geographic shift of the Christian movement from Jerusalem, the center of Judaism, to Rome, the center of the Gentile world."
 * CCC 880–881 does not in fact say anything about "based upon-extra biblical accounts of Peter's ministry and martyrdom in Rome".
 * "Scholars and Catholic Apologists point to historical evidence indicating Peter was the first Bishop of Rome" violates WP:SAY.
 * You cite "Catholic Answers: Was Peter in Rome?", but that says that the position of being the visible Head of the Church on earth could still be attached to the Bishop of Rome, even if Peter never went there: "If Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was established by Christ during his lifetime, long before Peter is said to have reached Rome. There must have been a period of some years in which the papacy did not yet have its connection to Rome." Furthermore, the same article says there is good evidence that Peter was in Rome; but it does not say there is good evidence that he was Bishop of Rome.
 * There could thus be a link between the function of the papacy and that of Peter even if Peter never went to Rome. There could also be a link even if Peter went to Rome but was not its bishop.  In addition, there could be a link even if there was a period perhaps of decades between the death of Peter and the first monoepiscopos of Rome.  After all, even today there is an interval between the death of one holder of the office and the election of a replacement.  The Church has not actually declared that there was no such interval.  Esoglou (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with the current draft wording, Esoglou's objections notwithstanding. I have done significant research on these topics and it seems to me that the current draft reflects adequately what the sources attest. If Esoglou has minor wording changes suggested, we could evaluate them on the merits, but I feel a lot of pixels have been spilled already over a minor section of this huge article. Elizium23 (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If they're minor, they should be easy to fix, perhaps starting with the first: the "Failed verification" comment. Either change the text that is not supported by the citation, or find a valid citation for it.  Esoglou (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Push into article
Thank you, Esoglou, for your feedback. I have addressed the majority of the issues you have pointed out. I apparently did not read Boring correctly, and removed that entire passage. A brief summary of other apostle's activities may still be appropriate. I have pushed the revised draft into the article. Thank you Elizium, too, for your support. The final "diffs" between the version that was reviewed, and the version pushed can be found [here]. --Zfish118 (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Changes to "Homosexuality" Section by IP
An IP made some good faith edits to the Homosexuality section, but I'm not sure if they should be kept or not. Specifically I'm not sure whether the changes to the first paragraph accurately reflect the source. (The change to the second paragraph doesn't bug me.) Any thoughts? (version here.) Luthien22 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The diffs
 * The passage of the Catechism cites Persona Humana, Chapter 8, which describes such acts as a "serious depravity". I


 * In context:


 * "In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of". (emphasis added)


 * Persona Humana, in turn, cites Rom 1:24-27, which states:


 * "That is why God left them to their filthy enjoyments and the practices with which they dishonor their own bodies since they have given up Divine truth for a lie and have worshipped and served creatures instead of the Creator, Who is blessed forever. Amen! That is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions; why their women have turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices and why their menfolk have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion" [It further refers says] See also what St. Paul says of "masculorum concubitores" in I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10.


 * While the Catechism does not specifically add the qualifier "and thus sinful", its footnote refers to another authoritative church document that describes such acts as a "serious depravity"; "And thus sinful", if anything, is a milder rendition of what the source states. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Was just checking no mild inaccuracies had slipped in. Luthien22 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV check in
Especially in light of recent additions to the early history section, are there any lingering NPOV concerns? --Zfish118 (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , in particular?


 * Apologies for the slow reply; I have been traveling. The discussion in the last two weeks has been impressive! I do not immediately see particular NPOV concerns in the intro. Piledhighandeep (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I noticed that Zfish118 took the time to apply the history consensus from this article to the origin section of the History of the Catholic Church article. It would be wonderful if someone could also apply what was decided on the this article's history section to the first paragraph of the History of the Catholic Church article, which is almost identical to the old former lead paragraph of the history section of this article and suffers from the same issues. Piledhighandeep (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

History lead draft

 * Draft of lead located at here

I have created a draft of a new lead for the history section here. The current lead inadequately summarizes that very complex history section, and provides no summary or guidance as to its content. Nothing in the draft is meant to be controversial or surprising, but to merely summarize the history section. The draft may be freely edited as though it were part of the article; there is no specific target date for its inclusion. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it looks good to me as is. Anybody else? (In particular ?) Luthien22 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it looks good overall. I made some edits: consistency in capitalizing the Church, a chronology edit, a missing word, and a few phrasing changes. Piledhighandeep (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have pushed the draft into the article. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Drive?
Recently thanks to requests by User:Piledhighandeep we did a massive rewrite on the beginning of the history section to remove NPOV issues. This article's right now at B-class, so I thought maybe we could build on this momentum and run an edit drive to get this to either GA or FA. Any thoughts? Luthien22 (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * GA I think is in reach. The most obvious gap, I think, is the two sentence lead for the history section, which provides little guidance to the complex content of the whole. I started a public draft to collaboratively work on improving that deficiency.  Also, the history section was developed separately from much of the rest, so other work might try to cross reference of some of the content mentioned in the worship/doctrine/social issues sections with the history section, so that the article reads as as a cohesive whole. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By "cross referencing" I mean adding content in the sections that acknowledge topics discussed elsewhere; a past example was when the history section did not mention the Eastern Catholic Churches, so a passage was added mentioning the date that most joined the Catholic Church. This, I think, is a straight forward task.


 * A related issues, however, is redundant content. The worst is the "Sacrament of marriage" and "Marriage and divorce" sections, which repeat almost the exact content, save a bit more of canon law and historical commentary in the latter.  Another, less pressing example is "Celebration of the Eucharist" and "Sacrament of the Eucharist".  What is the best way to avoid repeating content within the article? --Zfish118 (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To solve the issue of redundancy for the Eucharist section, I have a somewhat drastic proposal. What if we move the entire Doctrine/Sacraments section above the Liturgy section? That way we explain what exactly transubstantiation is and the significance to Catholics of the sacrament in that section, then in the liturgy section we just explain the liturgy itself? This also seems to make more sense for organization since an understanding of the doctrines helps clarify the liturgy. The proposed organization would be Lead, Organisation and Demographics, Doctrine, Worship and Liturgy, History, rest of the article as is. That, I think, would require an official proposal. I'm not really sure how to avoid redundancy in the marriage sections, but maybe somebody else will have an idea. Luthien22 (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The current order of section represents a bit of a logical progression, starting at the pope, then the particular churches, diocese parishes; then then the liturgical rites are discussed, building off the particular churches. In the overall lead, the rites are said to represent different "theological emphases", which then colors the following doctrine section.  I am hesitant to break this progression unless a strong alternative organizing scheme is found; however, the rites include celebration of all the sacraments rather than just the Eucharist, and it need not yet go into detail regarding the Eucharist in this section as you suggest.  Another possibility, building off of your suggestion, might be to cover the sacraments in the "worship" section rather than the "doctrine" section.  The sacraments are all forms of worship, even if their details are rooted in doctrine.  The discussion of many of the sacraments already includes the slight differences found between the different rites or churches. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I introduced an edit here to remove the redundant Eucharist content, by generalizing it to the celebration of all the sacraments (much of the content in "Celebration..." actually applied to several others). Regarding swapping the positions of doctrine and worship, I am neutral.  I also toyed with moving the sacraments into worship, but am uncertain if that makes much difference. Sacraments have both dogma and discipline, and are vital enough to cover in multiple sections.  Similarly, an abbreviated description of marriage as a sacrament, with a full section on Catholic sexual morality and issues probably does not require a dramatic realignment of content to avoid a tidbit of redundancy.  I welcome peoples thoughts or comments. --Zfish118 (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I will be very busy during the coming holiday season, and will not be available often. I support efforts to trim, copyedit and polish the article, and will check in occasionally to offer ideas or feedback.  Happy Thanksgiving to fellow US Wikipedians, and Happy Holidays to all! --Zfish118 (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

History Lead length
The while this is the particular lead of only a section of the article, Lead section should probably still be applied, as the history section is approximately the same length of the rest of the article combined (and still a significant summary of the content at History of the Catholic Church). With regard to the "jump" from the 1960's back to the New Testament, this just follows WP:Lead's guidance: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview". --Zfish118 (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it concise enough? Esoglou (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In general, several areas in the article need trimming and revision, and I do not necessarily exclude the history lead. I pushed the draft so that it may be exposed to more editors after the major issues were addressed. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite
Since there is an edit dispute, we must clarify whether we should in Wikipedia speak of the 1962 variant of the Tridentine Mass as the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. There have been many forms of the Roman Rite. At any one time, e.g., in 2014, only one of them is the ordinary form, all the others are extraordinary. Pope Benedict introduced the novelty of authorizing another form apart from the ordinary form. This second authorized form, that of the 1962 Roman Missal, he described as an extraordinary form: "The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration" (Letter to the bishops). Because there are now two authorized forms, one of them being the present ordinary form, many have taken to calling the other form the extraordinary form, rather than the authorized extraordinary form. However, other extraordinary forms exist and are in use, even if they are not officially authorized. Some people do not accept the changes made by Pope John XXIII in 1962. Some do not accept even the changes made by Pope Pius XII in 1955. They call both the 1962 and the 1955 changes "trial balloons" for Pope Paul VI's 1969 changes: see this commentary and this article. So there are still in use, even now, more than two forms of the Roman Rite. One of them is the present ordinary form. All the others, not just one of them, are now extraordinary (non-ordinary) forms.

The forms differ in more than rubrics. Pius XII's Holy Week text changes were by no means minor, and John XXIII altered the Canon of the Mass, previously considered untouchable, as well as making other text changes, such as in the Good Friday prayer for the Jews. That, much more than rubrics and precedence of feasts, is why those people prefer the pre-1962 and even the pre-1955 texts, and why they use those non-ordinary forms of the Roman Rite. Esoglou (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is only one Extraordinary Form. It is unambiguously referred to as such in the most recent motu proprio, Universae ecclesiae: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cedinsumpon.HTM The fact that there may be other Missals extant does not change this, they are not called "an extraordinary form" in any Church document, they are simply referred to as the Missal of such-and-such a year, or of Pope So-and-So. Elizium23 (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When the discourse is exclusively about authorized forms of the Roman Rite, as in the document you cite (which is giving rules about authorized forms, obviously not about non-authorized forms of the Roman Rite), there is only one extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. Outside of that limited universe, there are more – non-authorized forms of the Roman Rite that are extraordinary in the technical sense, as when the Church distinguishes between ordinary and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, or between ordinary and extraordinary assemblies of the Synod of Bishops.
 * It isn't just a matter of having old missals in a library or an archive. The pre-1962 and the pre-1955 forms are in actual use.  Pope Benedict did not speak of the 1962 form as the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, but as the Missal of such-and-such a year ("published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962") and called it a Forma extraodinaria of the Roman Rite.  Esoglou (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a WP:RS which describes a third Missal as "an extraordinary form" of the Roman Rite? Elizium23 (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No. But can you provide a reliable source that describes the earlier and still valid forms of the Roman Rite as not now extraordinary?  Esoglou (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should I have to prove a negative if you can't prove it positively? The older forms may be still valid, but not licit. I have a Church document with consistent usage of "the forma extraordinaria" and you can't produce a shred of evidence to refute it. I don't know why we're having this discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for kicks, I googled "Mass in an extraordinary form" and "Mass in the extraordinary form". The former had three hits, all alike, and the latter had about 67,800 results, all different. So I would ask you why you think you need to mess with the common usage as well as the most recent, official usage of the Church. Elizium23 (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are asking me to prove a negative: that the earlier forms of the Roman Rite are not extraordinary forms of it. And you have a papal document that calls the 1962 form an extraordinary form.
 * To get to the essential. Pope Benedict has shown that the 1962 form of the Roman Rite can be called an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.  That in various contexts it is commonly called the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite is also evident.  The claim that the 1962 form of the Roman Rite can no longer be called an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, and must now be referred to as the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite requires proof.  Pope Benedict's document has not been withdrawn.  I presume you don't really maintain that.  Wouldn't it be simpler to have Wikipedia speak unambiguously of the 1962 version of the Tridentine Mass, rather than stir up problems about whether that version should be called "the" or "an" extraordinary form of the Roman Rite?  I'll see your reply tomorrow.  Esoglou (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have tried to avoid saying either "an extraordinary form" or "the extraordinary form" by saying instead "its (the Roman Rite's) authorised extraordinary form". Is that acceptable to both of us?  Esoglou (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We can report both descriptions, for both exist, each in its own context. What Benedict XVI said should not, cannot, be denied.  Esoglou (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "expanded" versus "affirmed", I think slight misunderstanding arose; I edited the sentence to say two things: He affirmed the continued use of the 1962 missal (that it was not divisive, etc), and issued new permissive norms. Using "Expanded" in the first clause repeats the second clause, and removes a distinct piece of information. (I do not oppose revision, but wanted to clarify that I had incorporated two distinct pieces of information.) --Zfish118 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggested line giving context to the other western rites: "These rites predate the standardization of Tridentine mass in the 1570 and were thus allowed to continue." I wish to make sure it is accurate before it is included. --Zfish118 (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps: Leaving aside the Anglican-inspired "uses" of the Roman Rite, all these liturgical rites have an antiquity of at least 200 years before 1570, the date of Pope Pius V's Quo primum, and were thus allowed to continue. Esoglou (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes! I think that phrasing is effective. I could not remember the exact cut off time myself, and hoped you would be able incorporate it into the final version. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In light of the undo weight concerns expressed in the edit history, I placed the American Anglican use in a footnote. This better highlights the new ordinates, which have an important impact on Catholic-Anglican ecumenical relations.  I also incorporated a portion of the suggested text above to give more weight through elaboration on the Ambrosian and other rites. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Sexuality and gender" heading
Is "Sexuality and gender", which has now been anchored, a suitable heading within this article, in view of the contrast between "gender constructionism" and the idea that "God creates the two sexes the way they are meant to be, and that is their essence, male and female. God intends members of each sex to desire only members of the opposite sex. (Adrian Thatcher, God, Sex, and Gender, pp. 19–20)? Esoglou (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the inclusion of "gender" in the subsection title was only meant to include the teachings regarding female ordination, which is not directly related to sexual morals. Perhaps if this were broken out into top subsection of "Contemporary issue", "Sexuality and gender" could be more logically renamed.  Either "Chastity", "Sexual morality", "Sexual moral teaching", or some combination might be better alternatives. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made the suggested change. Esoglou (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent segue between "Social services" and "Women and clergy"! --Zfish118 (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Effects of Arab domination of the Mediterranean
Paragraph 2 of the History section speaks of "expanding Muslim conquests following the advent of Islam [that] led to an Arab domination of the Mediterranean". It is at present without citation of source. I find it difficult to trace the source that in our discussion was once cited in this regard. It certainly concerned the controversial Pirenne Thesis. (I apologize for the ambiguous expression I used in an edit summary, saying "you [Piledhighandeep] and I may disagree", by which I meant not "disagree with one another", but "disagree (both of us) with the thesis".) Piledhighandeep and I do seem to disagree about what was the effect of that Arab domination of the Mediterranean as a lead-up to the East-West Schism. Piledhighandeep believes that it "severed political connections between the western and eastern Mediterranean". I altered that to "severed political connections between that area and northern Europe" (by "that area", I meant the area dominated by Arabs). Perhaps, if necessary with the help of others, we can both agree, and arrive at a clearer exposition.

The citation that was once part of this paragraph was, I think, to some part of this book. To me, the book (and the Pirenne Thesis too) seems to speak about a break between the Arab-dominated area (mention is made of Egypt and of trade with the Far East), not about a break between western Europe and the Byzantine Empire, which I think continued to interact closely, if hostilely. I take it that what happened was that the break of commercial and other links between what I called "that area" (the Arab area) and northwestern Europe severely cut down and diminished the prosperity of the Mediterranean interface between them, leading to a concentration of activity away from that interface. This doubtless happened on the Arab side too, but the Pirenne Thesis concentrates only on the side of northwestern Europe, which underwent a new urbanization and the growth of trade that ignored the Mediterranean. As I see it, this was like the change brought by the voyages of discovery in later centuries. Before those voyages, and possibly as one result of the Crusades, there was again great Mediterranean trade, involving also passage to the Far East through the Muslim-dominated area, bringing prosperity to Italian cities such as Venice and Genoa. When the focus of trade shifted to the Cape route and the Atlantic, that prosperity diminished. Just think of the work begun in Siena to make their wonderful cathedral just a transept of an immensely bigger cathedral of which they began to build the outer walls, but were unable, on account of the decline of their prosperity, to finish. To return to the point, I think the break was, as I said, at the Mediterranean interface with the Arab area, and its influence on the origin of the East-West Schism was only indirect, by enabling a non-Mediterranean empire to develop that no longer saw itself as a state on the margin of the Byzantine Empire but as its full-blown rival. I mean of course the Frankish Empire. Piledhighandeep will doubtless help clarify the whole matter. Esoglou (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your link to the recent summary / forward by Michael McCormick is great. In the Pirenne edition you linked, the relevant section is around page 17. In other works (see below) Pirenne speaks not only about a break between the newly Arab dominated Mediterranean realms and Christian realms, but also seems to discuss a break between the 'Occident' (Charlemagne's realms, including most western Christian realms) and the Byzantine Empire, occasioned by the Arab domination of the western Mediterranean. Pirenne seems to me to be also talking about the cause behind the severing of the bonds (political, cultural, trade) that had traditionally united the Roman Christian world around the Mediterranean. From a 1939 translation of Pirenne's "Mohammed and Charlemagne" (1937),


 * "To summarize the situation: The Christian Mediterranean was divided into two basins, the East and the West, surrounded by Islamic countries. These latter, the war of conquest having come to an end by the close of the 9th century, constituted a world apart, self-sufficing, and gravitating toward Baghdad. It was toward this central point that the caravans of Asia made their way, and here ended the great trade route which led to the Baltic, by way of the Volga. It was from Baghdad that produce was exported to Africa and Spain. The Musulmans themselves did not trade with the Christians, but they did not close their ports to the latter. They allowed them to frequent their harbours, to bring them slaves and timber, and to carry away whatever they chose to buy. Christian navigation, however, continued to be active only in the Orient. [emphasis mine] Byzantium succeeded in preventing Islam from obtaining the mastery of the sea. Ships continued to sail from Venice along the Adriatic coast and the coast of Greece to the great city on the Bosphorus. And further, they did not cease to frequent the Musulman ports of Asia Minor, Egypt, Africa, Sicily and Spain. The ever-increasing prosperity of the Musulman countries, once the period of expansion was over, benefited the maritime cities of Italy. Thanks to this prosperity, in Southern Italy and in the Byzantine Empire an advanced civilization survived, with cities, a gold currency, and professional merchants: in short, a civilization which had retained its ancient foundations.


 * In the Occident, on the contrary, the coast from the Gulf of Lyons and the Riviera to the mouth of the Tiber, ravaged by war and the pirates, whom the Christians, having no fleet, were powerless to resist, was now merely a solitude and a prey to piracy. The ports and the cities were deserted. The link with the Orient was severed, [emphasis mine] and there was no communication with the Saracen coasts. There was nothing but death. The Carolingian Empire presented the most striking contrast with the Byzantine. It was purely an inland power, for it had no outlets. The Mediterranean territories, formerly the most active portions of the Empire, which supported the life of the whole, were now the poorest, the most desolate, the most constantly menaced. For the first time in history the axis of Occidental civilization was displaced towards the North and for many centuries it remained between the Seine and the Rhine. And the Germanic peoples, which had hitherto played only the negative part of destroyers, were now called upon to play a positive part in the reconstruction of European civilization." page 183 and page 184.


 * Of course the fact that Iconoclasm also occurred at exactly this time, and contributed to East-West splitting, is a confounding factor, though it too is not unrelated to the then recent Islamic conquests, since many scholars believe that Iconoclasm was partially a reaction to these conquests, and possibly influenced by Muslim doctrine. Piledhighandeep (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we must wait for comments from others. For one thing, since the McCormick introduction that I linked to says that the Pirenne Thesis has been controversial and in some respects is dated, we cannot present its idea as fact.  We must attribute the associated  statements to their authors, not present them in Wikipedia's voice.
 * Your quotations seem to me to support the picture of a new centre springing up on each side of the Mediterranean interface and each removed from the Mediterranean. On the one side Baghdad, on the other the area between the Seine and the Rhine.  Constantinople kept a certain sea power, but it was becoming limited practically to the Aegean and the Black Sea.  The main eastern Mediterranean basin was Muslim-controlled, and the power centre of this area, the Orient, was Baghdad, not Constantinople.  In the West (and I consider Italy, including Rome, as part of the Occident) the lack of any strong sea power, until Venice and Genoa and the other maritime republics developed their navies (dominant, McCormick says, "across the entire Mediterranean" by the 11th century) meant that in the whole Western basin there was no counterweight on the ravaged Mediterranean coast to the power arising between the Seine and the Rhine, which thus expanded freely.  Constantinople  was certainly not part of the "world apart, self-sufficing, and gravitating toward Baghdad" of "the Islamic countries": its important relations with Bulgarians, Serbs and Hungarians and the gradual loss of its Asian territories, which had once been its main area of interest, were making it part of the Occident rather than of the Orient.
 * Since one could say that my version is at present in possession, perhaps you would indicate what you would like to put in its place (presenting theories as attributed theories), in the hope that we can draw others to comment, and ourselves work towards an agreed text. Esoglou (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On further reading of your quotations, I think I see more clearly how you draw your conclusions. In the Occident (west of Sicily?) there was no "Christian navigation". There continued to be Christian navigation, including Venetian, to the east (of Sicily?): from the Adriatic eastward, Venetian ships traded both with the Byzantine dominions and the Muslim area.  In that understanding, the dividing line was Sicily and the Italian peninsula.  Rome was on the dividing line.
 * I don't see that as a factor that contributed directly to the East-West Schism. Its effect was only indirect.  West of the dividing line, there was no coastal rival to the inland Frankish power, which expanded to take in the coast also.  It then grew strong enough to take political control also of nearly all of the Italian peninsula, including Rome.  What had direct effect was Constantinople's loss of political power over Rome.  If the Muslim conquests were, according to the Pirenne Thesis, responsible for the growth of the Frankish empire, their effect on the East-West Schism was only indirect.  What had direct relation with the effect is what should be mentioned.  Otherwise we'd have to go back even further to whatever explains the Muslim conquests.
 * In the Wikipedia context, all this is perhaps quite irrelevant, since we can only insert what is stated explicitly in reliable sources, not our own original-research deductions from what the reliable sources say. Esoglou (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

History section, revisited
There was some talk not long along about shortening the history section. I pointed to an intermediate version from a couple years ago as a potential model. My main concern at the time was that the history section here is relatively trimmed, while the current History of the Catholic Church is a very long and complicated article.

I would like to offer a thought, not quite a proposal, to make the majority of the History Section the "History of the Catholic Church"; and the current one be renamed "Extended History of the Catholic Church". The history lead might be kept in "Catholic Church", perhaps expanded it a bit similar to the linked version found above. In its current form, it appears to be almost two standalone articles on single page. Perhaps a template might be constructed suggesting "Catholic Church" is "part one", and the abbreviated "History..." is "part two".

The version above got mixed acceptance, so for any major revisions, we would likely need buy in from several parties. At this stage, I would only like to see what thoughts others might have. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)