Talk:Papal infallibility/Archive 2

Papal Supermacy vs Papal Infallibility
I think this article mixes up supermacy with infallibility. In my opinion supermacy and infallibility might be connected but are two different things. Papal supermacy means that Peter was the first among the apostles. But this does not mean that he can't fail... I think this article needs a clean up. Many of the arguments listed for papal infallibility are in fact arguments for papal supermacy, but not really for papal infallibility. Mantchi (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words in study results.
I edited the following sentence: A recent (1989–1992) survey of Catholics from multiple countries (the USA, Austria, Canada, Ecuador, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Peru, Spain and Switzerland), aged 15 to 25 who may not yet fully understand the theology of infallibility, showed that 36.9% accepted the teaching on papal infallibility, 36.9% denied it, and 26.2% said they didn't know of it. (Source: Report on surveys of the International Marian Research Institute, by Johann G. Roten, S.M.) So that it now reads: A recent (1989–1992) survey of Catholics from multiple countries (the USA, Austria, Canada, Ecuador, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Peru, Spain and Switzerland), aged 15 to 25 showed that 36.9% accepted the teaching on papal infallibility, 36.9% denied it, and 26.2% said they didn't know of it. (Source: Report on surveys of the International Marian Research Institute, by Johann G. Roten, S.M.) The removed verbage, "who may not yet fully understand the theology of infallibility," is not found in the study cited. It appears to have been added by an editor wishing to temper the implications of the study. The ages of the respondents and their nationalities are explicitly mentioned. It is not necessary to warn the reader of the mental or educational deficiencies of 15 to 25 year olds. Schlemazl (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also removed words used to temper where Paul rebukes Peter
 * Originally the article said

and was corrected—albeit in a matter regarding his personal behaviour and failure to live by his own teachings—by the apostle Paul
 * I've now changed this to

and was corrected by the apostle Paul on a matter of teaching (as established by all the Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem)
 * the Council of Jerusalem (in Acts 15) had decided on a matter of faith. Peter was rebuked by Paul for backsliding on this. It was not about Peter's 'personal behaviour'. The opinion given was to lessen the rebuking of Peter to something trivial.

Montalban (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Opposition
There seems to be the usual suspects asking for citations on everything, and when I provide that what I write is edited out completely, anyway.

There was discussion to Papal infallibility prior to Vatican I. There was argument for, and against. I noted that the Catholics of Ireland and England had each stated that they weren't required to believe in it, or that it was a teaching.

One can at best say that this document is in 'development'. But for some it's too much Montalban (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way the article opens itself to this evidence because it offers 'examples' for papal infallibility prior to 1st Vatican. If one can show arguments for made before, then one can show arguments against made before - in the interests of balance.
 * Montalban (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is curious that I happened to add a few more examples of pre-1870 Catholic denials of infallibility before reading this demand that they be allowed. As arguments for and against dyophysitism were being proposed before the Council of Chalcedon, arguments for and against papal infallibility were indeed being proposed before the First Vatican Council.  Surely nobody disputes that.  Esoglou (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's odd that when someone says 'surely nobody disputes that' one would remove parts of the article on that very point Montalban (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I added, not removed. Esoglou (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A different tact
The catholic church in England protested their ignorance of infallibility in a different way from the church in Ireland.

"We, the English Catholics, ought not to suffer for or on Account of any wicked or erroneous Doctrines that may be held by any other Catholics which Doctrines We, publicly disclaim, any more than British Protestants ought to be rendered responsible for any dangerous Doctrines that may be held by any other Protestants, which Doctrines, the British Protestants disavow." Clifford, B., (ed.) (1985) The Veto controversy: including Thomas Moore's Letter to the Roman Catholics of Dublin, (Athol Books), pp94-5.

The Irish church in effect just said "It's all the fault of false stories from Protestants".

The English church tried a different tact and in effect are saying "We accept that some Catholics have held this, but they're wrong and we don't blame Protestants for circulating this, but they shouldn't just as we don't circulate misinformation about them."

Montalban (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources cited with regard to the catechisms speak of England as well as of Ireland, including the statement that the claim that Catholics were obliged to belief in an indefinite infallibility of the Pope was a Protestant invention. The Veto Controversy was unrelated to the catechisms question.  Esoglou (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's very much what I just said. The Irish remonstrance said it was a Protestant invention. However the veto book says that the English said otherwise.
 * If you have evidence that the English ALSO blamed Protestants than put it forward.
 * The Veto Controversy book is not just about appointments of bishops so I'm unsure of what the statement
 * The Veto Controversy was unrelated to the catechisms question.
 * refers to. If you look at the date of Keenan's Catechism it seems to be from around 1870, which thus makes it past the time of Catholic emancipation and therefore I have no idea what it has to do with the two statements (of the Irish, and of the English) I cited.
 * Furthermore the book W. J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (John Murray 1909), p. 112 is NOT saying that the English catholics say it's a Protestant invention. He's saying that it was denounced earlier as a Protestant invention (not saying who denounced it), and that now Catholics have reversed this by actually adhering to infallibility.
 * Montalban (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have overlooked what the Sparrow Simpson book say about Keenan's Catechism: that Keenan's Catechism bore the imprimatur of four "Roman" - the writer's attitude shows in his inability to say even "Roman Catholic" - "Bishops, two of them being Vicars Apostolic".  There were no vicars apostolic in Ireland, but the Catholic Church in England was then in the care of vicars apostolic exclusively.  He also says: "From 1846 to 1860" - not "around 1870" as your personal statement puts it - "it was being largely circulated throughout England, Scotland and Ireland" - chiefly, it seems, throughout England, since England is mentioned first and since Keenan's Catechism had the blessing or imprimatur of two of the 4 (or perhaps the number had already been increased to 8) vicars apostolic of England and only two of the 29 Irish bishops.  How's that for evidence that those in charge of the Catholic Church in England accepted the statement in Keenan's Catechism at least as much as the Catholic Church in Ireland?  You yourself have answered your objection to the statement that the Veto Controversy had nothing to do with the catechisms question.  You presumably know that the Veto Controversy "was a contentious topic in the politics of the United Kingdom in the period 1808 to 1829", as the Wikipedia article about it says in the very first line.  That was decades before the catechisms, which the cited source (Sparrow Simpson) puts "from 1846 to 1860" and which you want to put even later.  Catholic emancipation had come in the meantime, obtained without the proposed veto being imposed, and thus ending the controversy about the proposed veto.  Esoglou (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * read again what I wrote in respect of the dates. I'm more than happy to go over this again. I have tonnes of patience - there's a christianforums I debate on this - and have been since 2004 so I've been doing this for 7 years.
 * I cited a book talking about two remonstrances -one Irish, one English. IT notes that the Irish one simply blamed Protestants. But the English one did not. You then cite a work about a catechism written 70 years later that suggests Protestants were blamed. Does this negate what I cited? Not in the least. It may well be that the English did then blame the Protestants later, or in other works other than the remonstrance my citation talks about. You're welcome, if you have the evidence to re-write it along the lines of
 * "Although the petition of the English to parliament specifically avoided blaming Protestants, other English works did blame them"
 * then cite those other works and show their date and how it relates to what I wrote.
 * good luck with that but at present you're picking evidence out of context (of time)
 * Montalban (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You began this section by stating: "The catholic church in England protested their ignorance of infallibility in a different way from the church in Ireland." The catechism protest of ignorance of infallibility that you attribute to the Irish alone ("It's all the fault of false stories from Protestants") was English more than Irish. What you said was a distraction from your refusal to respond to the request for more specific information on "the English Declaration"; on two separate statements, first an Irish one, then an English one, to some unspecified parliamentary inquiries into Catholicism; and on something that you called "the English remonstrance to Parliament" (not just "an English remonstrance to Parliament"). It appears that you just choose not to respond to that request, as you choose not to respond to Noleander's. Esoglou (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Queries
Since the query tags are being repeatedly removed without giving any response to them, I must indicate the queries here:

What is "the English Declaration" (capitalized as a proper name) and what was "the English remonstrance to Parliament"? No indication of date is given for "the English Declaration", but its mention is given before the mention of parliamentary inquiries of the 1830s, which in turn is mentioned before "the English remonstrance to Parliament", a remonstrance linked to William Pitt the Younger, who was Prime Minister for 17 years leading to March 1801 and again for less than 2 years from 1804 to 1806. So "the English Declaration" and "the English remonstrance to Parliament" must be two distinct things. I do think that the reader needs an explanation of these two obscure terms. With regard to the "remonstrance", who were the English in question (Catholics, I presume, but we are not told so) and what were they remonstrating about?

Later in the article, there is the obscure mention of "parliamentary inquiries into Catholicism as part of the process of Catholic emancipation". The inquiries seem to be of the 1830s (the source cited is of 1837), but Catholic emancipation had been achieved in 1829. The 1837 date and the fact that the quotation given concerns Ireland alone would make one believe that the "inquiries" may have been the parliamentary "inquiry" of 1837-1838 into electoral problems in Ireland, covering the period 1832-1838. The quotation given must obviously be from one inquiry, not several. Whatever inquiry it was - and we ought to be told what - the quotation speaks only of Catholics in Ireland, so what is the source of a later ("and then in England") statement about the views of English Catholics. Or are we to believe that the English Catholics said nothing of their own views but only spoke of the Catholics in Ireland? Esoglou (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not true. I've removed the queries and noted why I've removed them, and then on my talk page have noted this too and above in the section "Unusual calls for references" - however some choose to keep on asking over and over again - even when they themselves have noted that it's in direct relation to Catholic Emancipation
 * Montalban (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have indeed, as you admit, "removed the queries", but you have not answered them. What was "the English Declaration"?   Specify it, please.  What was "the English remonstrance to Parliament"?  Specify it, please.  You have made this last expression even more obscure by above calling a catechism that was at least as much English as Irish "the Irish remonstrance", a strange description of a catechism.  What parliamentary inquiries into Catholicism are you talking about?  Were they pre-1829 as suggested by the phrase "as part of the process of Catholic emancipation?  Or were they post-1829 as suggested by what is presented as the source of the statement?  Which?  Esoglou (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're confused.
 * Montalban (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So am I. Esoglou (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Unusual calls for references
There is a section that reads
 * Catholics in Ireland and then in England stated, in answer to parliamentary inquiries into Catholicism as part of the process of Catholic emancipation, that they did not believe that the Pope was infallible,
 * "The Catholics of Ireland not only do not believe, but they declare upon oath... that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible."[47]


 * and at the same time they declared that it was not an article of faith that Catholics were obliged to believe.[48]


 * The opinion of the English remonstrance to Parliament had first been approved by several Catholic universities in Europe. It was sent to the Catholic Universities of Paris, Louvain, Douai, Alcala, Salamanca and Valladolid. This was at the suggestion of Pitt.
 * "He urged his Catholic friends to establish exactly what the authoritative Catholic position on the obnoxious doctrines now was, so that he might consider the feasibility of (Catholic) emancipation."[49]

It is about Catholic emancipation. It says so at the beginning, and in the quote at the end. It seems strange to me that the person continually bombarding the article for citations on every sentence actually changed the article to show that it was about Catholic emancipation - improving it's clarity - but now that same person wants to know what the remonstrance was about, and what this bit and that bit are about.

Montalban (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It says so (obscurely), but it isn't sourced. A citation has been requested.  Esoglou (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It (what?) says so (what?) obscurely? What isn't sourced? Montalban (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Whatever you meant when you said: "It says so at the beginning, and in the quote at the end", presumably that "it is about Catholic emancipation"." So what source says "it is about Catholic emancipation"?  Please provide it.  Otherwise the statement can be deleted.  Esoglou (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha Ha! I love this joke. I get it, you want citations on absolutely everything in a statement. Then you want to repeat endlessly the same request. Very droll. Anyone else might have caught on that when it talks about Pitt
 * Here's what I wrote above (note the number giving the citation)
 * ...Pitt.
 * "He urged his Catholic friends to establish exactly what the authoritative Catholic position on the obnoxious doctrines now was, so that he might consider the feasibility of (Catholic) emancipation."[49]
 * Now ask me again!
 * Is this like hazing the new guy?
 * Montalban (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have successfully led me after some red herring. What I asked for, and what you have chosen not to give, is information about what were the "parliamentary inquiries into Catholicism as part of the process of Catholic emancipation" that seem to have been carried out after Catholic emancipation was granted, and what was "the English remonstrance to Parliament" that you tell me was presented in the previous century. You could have simply cited a reliable source and page number that specifies each, but you have chosen not to do so.  Esoglou (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This you claim all the time. I suggest you go to the article and look to where I referenced a book called "The Veto Controversy"

I can only suggest you read the article so many times.

Montalban (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Over sourcing
This is a fascinating game it seems of asking for sources on everything and then, after I give sources, those same people edit the who section out - which is what happened when I first wrote information from the book "The Veto Controversy"

I'm new to Wiki and am not so well versed in such games.

It's strange that on another subject I've been accused of putting too much info. Why isn't the date for the Irish statement requested?

Given the article deals with Pitt, we already have an approximate date - Pitt's premiership, and before the emancipation of Catholics. However if someone wants an exact date then they only need read the source - 1789. The same people are aware that it's available on Google books. Montalban (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here too you have put too much unsourced (and unclear and perhaps mistaken) information. You still haven't explained what was "the English remonstrance to Parliament".  The book you mention is available on Google Books only in snippet view, and since you don't even give the page number, that is of no assistance to understanding who remonstrated and about what.  You have now given the snippet of information that it was dated 1789.  I have Googled "English remonstrance" + 1789, and have only found three items concerning relations between Britain and the United States.  Nothing about papal infallibility.  Esoglou (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's another one of you asking for information already provided (Catholic Emancipation has been mentioned by me several times now), and an appeal to incredulity based on your own 'research' into Google based on a single search string???
 * If you can't see the information I've already given in the article, try these terms in google "1789 english catholic papal infallibility"
 * if you need any further help searching for material, you're more than welcome to e-mail me
 * Oh, and in case you missed it here, here it is again C-A-T-H-O-L-I-C E-M-A-N-C-I--P-A-T-I-O-N
 * I added a further mention of it into the document, making three times it's there.
 * You're also welcome to have a look at this site http://www.oodegr.com/english/papismos/papal_infallibility_dogma.htm
 * In summary, you've asked me what it's about. I've now replied three times. You say it's unclear in the article although I pointed out that "Catholic Emancipation" is mentioned at the head and tail of the part I edited. I even mentioned how you added it in, and helped clarify the article. And you still don't know what it's about?
 * Montalban (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What you were asked for information on was "the English remonstrance to Parliament". How nice of you to tell me at last that the information could be found by Googling the five words you indicated, and which did not include the word "remonstrance"! Among the about 531,000 results of that operation, I presume you refer to the article by Michael Whelton given by the Orthodox Christian Information Center, which has the short sentence, "In 1789 the Protestation of the English Catholics was signed by all the vicars-general and all the Catholic clergy and laity in England of any note, and solemnly declared before Parliament that we acknowledge no infallibility in the pope." Now why did you not give that citation from the start? Why did you not give it even now, refusing to do more than provide a hint that enabled me to find it on my own. I leave aside the question of choosing to give the name of "remonstrance" to a document that chose to call itself a Protestation in the hope of getting greater toleration under a Protestant government; the description of this document as "the English remonstrance to Parliament", as if there had never been more than one English remonstrance to Parliament and everybody knew what it was; and the fact that the document denies Infallibility not in relation to a Pope teaching doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole church, but instead in the contest of an accusation levelled against Catholics that "if the Pope, or any General Council, should, for the Good of the Church, command us to take up Arms against the Government, or by any means to subvert the Laws and Liberties of this Country, or to exterminate Persons of a different Persuasion from us, we (it is asserted by our Accusers) hold ourselves bound to obey such Orders or Decrees, on pain of eternal Fire" (section 2 of the document, reproduced on page 15 of this book). I only ask that in future, you will please have the common courtesy to respond to citation requests by giving a citation. Esoglou (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Excepting I told you several times before the document was about Catholic emancipation. You kept accusing me of avoiding this, and each time (if I say so myself) I've patiently told you. I even pointed out how the part I edited starts and ends with it. I then cited it again - including the bit with Pitt saying it would aid in discussion on CATHOLIC emancipation
 * I didn't cite the document directly, so I don't know what your google objection is. You couldn't find a document I never directly quoted? You couldn't find a document I never said was formally called "The English Remonstrance" (notice the lack of capitalisation in the article when I refer to the document). In English we capitalise proper nouns.
 * I cited the Veto Controversy book which quotes the document in several places - see article for citations.
 * I never formally called the document "The English Remonstrance", you seem fixated that I referred to it as a 'remonstrance', and not a 'protest', or 'appeal'. I've no idea what this objection means
 * Let's look at your citation of the document on google
 * Where does it qualify infallibility as you claim? Page 15 which you mention says plainly "We acknowledge no infallibility in the pope". I can only assume that you miss the conjunction 'and' in your reading of it. It is saying "We don not accept infallibility AND we do not accept disobeying such would lead to punishment AND the church can't attack the rights of Protestants AND..." and so on. I apologise if English is not your first language but and is a conjunction (a coordinator) meaning that it joins together different points.
 * Check out the House of Commons reply on page 32 - where they acknowledge that the petition states no papal infallibility.
 * Check out page 52 where they actually qualify his infallibility by saying that he has no personal fallibility outside of the church (we Orthodox accept that the church as a whole speaks infallibly and therefore anyone stating the church's faith could be said to be speaking infallibly)
 * Perhaps you're confusing the document Veto Controversy talks of with the letter from the three Papal Vicars (given in your google citation page 99 - you could use this in the article if you wish to qualify what you think the denial of papal infallibility was about).
 * By the way, when reading the document take care that it's got old fashioned 's' that look like an 'f'
 * Thanks for the direct link - I would suggest if you want to keep it, download it from archive.org as a *.pdf
 * If you're unhappy that I've told you now five times what it's about and cited a book referring to it, that's fine.
 * I still have no idea what it is you're remonstrating about.
 * Just for fun, if you have the time, check out page 103 of the google cite
 * Montalban (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No more red herrings, please, whether about the shape of non-final s 200 years ago or anything else. I asked what was "the English remonstrance to Parliament" that you wrote about, but instead of giving me the normal courtesy of a reply, you deleted my request.  Please be more cooperative.  Esoglou (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When I answer you you ask me again.
 * I removed the weasel-words and over editorialising where you've tried to diminish the impact of the opposition by making excuses for it
 * Montalban (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Misquotes through editorialising
Indeed the remonstrance mentioned about taking up arms, but that being one part of it, the citing of that part is to misrepresent the evidence where the infallibility of the pope is denied

It is in fact editorialising to the extent of downplaying the remonstrance's scope -which in discussion I pointed out above from someone else's own source

Here it is again

"We acknowledge no infallibility in the pope". It is AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS that English Catholics don't need to take heed of a call to arms against the government. That categorical statement is watered down through what can only be spin.

Montalban (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you consider it illegitimate to quote the statement "We acknowledge no infallibility in the pope" with its uncommented immediate context. And yet you want to insert a passage from another part of the document, a passage that you have not shown to be related to papal infallibility: "We, the English Catholics, ought not to suffer for or on Account of any wicked or erroneous Doctrines that may be held by any other Catholics which Doctrines We, publicly disclaim, any more than British Protestants ought to be rendered responsible for any dangerous Doctrines that may be held by any other Protestants, which Doctrines, the British Protestants disavow."
 * Please show how your context is in fact what it suggests.

Montalban (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A strange request! The context of the phrase (not "my" context!) is what it is, suggests whatever it may suggest.  I don't say it suggests anything.  Maybe you do.  It does no more than help the reader to understand the phrase better.  Esoglou (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, your context, based on sythesis.
 * It says absolutely NO acceptance of it, you then transpose that it only relates to one thing, which you cite, when it doesn't say that.
 * But alas, I already explained this. Here it is again. Absolute denial of infallibility, and from that they don't have to accept ANY orders as infallibile, such as the call to topple their leaders - underpinning this, and you'd realise this if you'd done history was that from the rule of Henry VIII the pope had encouraged Catholics in England to attack the monarch - making all suspect of being enemies of the king. That is why it is especially mentioned. It is also why, as part of anti-Catholic legislation (viz The Test Act) Catholics were barred from offices of state, including the military.
 * And *sigh* as noted your synthesis relies on you using one document to undermine one made 70 years prior, therefore it's out of context
 * AND (further *sigh*) you claim your source is no an objection therefore it's out of context of that section - which is about objections. Fair is fair. On the Councils you removed from the orthodox section what I wrote about our perceptions on Catholic councils - you said "This is not about Catholic understanding". Apparently these

rules apply so sinuously as to only favour Catholicism ???
 * Montalban (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What I inserted, what you removed was:

In the Declaration and Protestation signed by the English Catholic Dissenters in 1789,<<>> the signatories stated: "We have also been accused of holding, as a Principle of our Religion, That implicit Obedience is due from us to the Orders and Decrees of Popes and General Councils; and that therefore if the Pope, or any General Council, should, for the Good of the Church, command us to take up Arms against the Government, or by any means to subvert the Laws and Liberties of this Country, or to exterminate Persons of a different Persuasion from us, we (it is asserted by our Accusers) hold ourselves bound to obey such Orders or Decrees, on pain of eternal Fire: Whereas we positively deny, That we owe any such Obedience to the Pope and General Council, or to either of them; and we believe that no Act that is in itself immoral or dishonest can ever be justified by or under Colour that it is done either for the Good of the Church, or in Obedience to any ecclesiastical Power whatever. We acknowledge no Infallibility in the Pope, and we neither apprehend nor believe, that our Disobedience to any such Orders or Decrees (should any such be given or made) could subject us to any Punishment whatever.<<>>"

Where is the misquoting, editorializing, synthesis, transposing, etc., etc., that you are complaining of? Why did you delete it? Esoglou (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The talk section is not a debate forum. If you can show how Keenan is relevant to the remonstrances made 70 years earlier, please let me know
 * Montalban (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I maintain that the talk page is not a debate forum, and that Keenan's Catechism is not relevant to remonstrances made 70 years earlier. So what misquoting, editorializing, synthesis, transposing, irrelevancy are you trying to have a debate about?  Esoglou (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair play
When re-adding the sourced information about Keenan's Catechism, I initially thought I had also undone yet another wholesale deletion of well-sourced material. That deletion, like its predecessors, was illegitimate. The material deleted was verified, unlike material that Montalban insists on including and refuses to verify when it is challenged. I have not deleted Montalban's material, although since it has not been verified I am entitled to delete it. Let the material added by both remain until it has been discussed. So I have now actually undone the deletion. Let each of us, on a level footing, discuss any difficulties raised by the other. Let us not simply delete the other's work. Esoglou (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Montalban has again 1) deleted another's work; 2) deleted queries about his own work instead of producing clarification or verification. Esoglou (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly let's not try and take a moral high-ground that is undeserved it immediately undermines the very call to 'fair play'.
 * Secondly you've never acknowledged what I've answered your many repeats of questions - this also undermines a moral high ground argument. In fact you just go and repeat another unfounded accusation here again, that my material is unsourced - I even pointed out in discussion the reference.
 * Montalban (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your "answers"? If your statements are based on reliable sources, cite the sources in the article before deleting the requests.  And clarify the statements that need clarifying.  Just respond to the very few requests that I made here.  Don't just delete the requests and the sourced material that you also deleted.  I postpone restoring these requests and the material to give you the opportunity to do the proper thing yourself.  Esoglou (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a laugh, you removed two and reduced a section to just Hasler's opinion
 * Montalban (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What gave you that indeed laughable idea? Esoglou (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What gave you that indeed laughable idea? Esoglou (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keenan's Catechism

 * Thirdly Keenan's catechism is NOT a case of opposition to the doctrine - by your own use of it as a source - so even as you try and use it it's not in the right section
 * Fourthly, as I pointed out, it's 70 years after the citations I used. They say that they don't believe in infallibility - your BEST argument then is that 70 years later another source shows it in a different context.
 * Fifthly you simply re-edit in question on points already given, such as what the remonstrance is about, and its date.
 * Sixthly if you can back up your claims without resource to original research that would be great.
 * Seventhly as long as you keep re-editing this without reference to what is actually said then you will find me in opposition.
 * Montalban (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I draw your attention to original research and synthesis by retrojecting the statements of one catechism to a remonstrance made 70 years earlier, and also claim to 'contextualising' something by removing the absolute statement that they believed in NO papal infallibility
 * Montalban (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, you made these comments in defence of this deletion of yours.
 * 1) ("Thirdly") Keenan's catechism did oppose papal infallibility.  It expressly admitted having done so, saying that the Infallibility of the Pope "was also formerly impugned in this very Catechism" (W. J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (John Murray 1909), p. 112).
 * 2) ("Fourthly") It is not forbidden to cite sources 70 years after whatever "citations" of yours you mean. If you are referring to "In the campaign for Catholic emancipation; during the late eighteenth century two declarations in Ireland and, England explicitly denied it. In answer to the question whether the pope is infallible, the Catholic church in Ireland said that such an idea was a Protestant invention made to discredit Roman Catholics", that is a citation-less statement of yours that you refuse to verify.
 * 3) ("Fifthly") If you delete my questions without replying to them, why should I not ask them again?  With regard to "the remonstrance", you should surely specify what it was.  Was it the 1789 Declaration and Protestation?  How is the reader supposed to know that?  The reader would have to go back two paragraphs earlier, skipping an intervening paragraph on other matters, to find your mention of what you call "the English Declaration (1789)".  There you quote from it a paragraph that says nothing about papal infallibility.  You even quote this paragraph only at second hand, deleting the link that I gave to the document, and deleting also the quotation that I gave of the only mention of papal infallibility in the document!
 * 4) ("Sixthly") All my statements are clearly based on reliable sources, not original research.  But you delete my statements and, along with them, the citations of their sources.  If, instead of deleting my work in a way that makes me feel offended, you were to challenge any particular statement of mine as unsourced, I would either present you with a reliable source that says just that, or else remove or modify my statement.  Unlike what you do, I would not just delete your challenge.  So why don't you act in that more courteous way?  As for your statements, some lack citations from verifiable sources or ignore reliable sources that disagree with your preferred ones.  You cite Hasler (almost certainly at second hand) in support of your claim that a pope denied papal infallibility and you repeatedly delete the citation of two scholars who contradict Hasler.  You say that in the late 18th century "two declarations in Ireland and England explicitly denied infallibility", but you cite no source for Ireland, and for England only quote at second hand a paragraph that says nothing of infallibility!
 * 5) ("Seventhly")  I do give "reference to what is actually said", so why do you delete both statement and reference?
 * 6) I am certainly not "retrojecting the statements of one catechism to a remonstrance made 70 years earlier".  But maybe you are.  I have been vainly asking you for a citation to support your claim that what that 19th-century catechism demonstrably said was also said in the 18th-century, when, according to you, the Catholic Church in Ireland (the Church, no less, not an individual writer or a group within the Church - but I leave that aside) declared that the idea of papal infallibility was a Protestant invention made to discredit Roman Catholics.  Are you perhaps also retrojecting from the 19th-century catechism to the Declaration and Protestation of 1789 (which is probably what you mean by "a remonstrance")?  The 1789 document clearly does not say that infallibility was a Protestant invention.  Any attribution to it of that statement would surely be a retrojection.  Esoglou (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It would help if you read what I wrote. What I cited about what Catholics believed at one time is not negated by your sourcing of a different document 70 years later - as I noted, they may have changed their minds. They may have thought to clarify it then. Who knows - you just assume one - which is synthesis
 * Your statements are edits of your 'reliable' sources, edited in such a way as to change their emphasis. I noted the absolute statement made. I even put it in bold. If as I suspect, find English a difficult language you're welcome to e-mail me, or ask your teacher at school, or whomever.
 * Good luck
 * Montalban (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone else interested will surely see that I even noted that Keenan may not oppose, but because of that very thing, has no place in a section on opposition! That is the very point.
 * One editor here is championing using it by saying it doesn't oppose infallibility which misses the very point. On a section AGAINST infallibility it is a source that has no place. But most of these points seem to be missed
 * Montalban (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been following this discussion, although not closely. I'm wondering if the problem isn't the use of primary sources (this seems to be a problem on both sides of this debate).  Instead of arguing about what various primary sources mean, it would be better to find a secondary sources that cites these primary sources in support of an assertion.  Wikipedia is a tertiary source.  Editors should not be citing primary sources directly; doing so makes one susceptible to the charge of original research. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. The issue is NOT about primary sources. Your friend and colleague has himself provided a reference that says that papal infallibility was never accepted. He's attempted synthesis based on it to not only reinterpret what that document says, but also one written 70 years earlier. He's not actually shown that my book quotes anything incorrectly... that's why it's not a dispute about primary sources. You also seem to miss where I'm continually called to answer questions already answered and to reference what I've already sourced Montalban (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As some seem to miss it, here's the source Esolgou himself raised says...
 * "We acknowledge no infallibility in the pope"
 * It doesn't then say "Except", or "only in the case of"
 * Montalban (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So what is the issue, Montalban? Why have you repeatedly deleted the information about Keenan's Catechism?  That publication did witness to the fact that before 1870 Catholics freely denied papal infallibility, did it not?  It did so both in its 1860 and its 1895 editions.  The 1860 edition had:
 * (Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
 * (A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.
 * The 1895 revision had:
 * (Q.) But some Catholics before the Vatican Council denied the Infallibility of the Pope, which was also formerly impugned in this very Catechism.
 * (A.) Yes; but they did so under the usual reservation - 'in so far as they could then grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions' ...
 * This is well-sourced information, drawn from a book written to attack the Catholic Church's belief in papal infallibility. You have not been granted authorization to censor Wikipedia.  Esoglou (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already gone over this with you now three times. Let's just try one aspect. What has Keenan got to do with an article written 70 years before that denies infallibility? We can just work on these issues one at a time then shall we? Montalban (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For anyone new to this, in a section against infallibility I cited a remonstrance from the late 1700s. Esolgou then re-edited this to include a Catechism 70 years later that supports infallibility - it's his way of lessening the original document categorically denying infallibility by putting it in his idea of context. It's to offer synthesis
 * Not only does it not negate that 70 years before Catholics were categorically denying infallibility it doesn't belong as a source in that section.
 * As infallibility is now 'doctrine' it's very easy for a Catechism now to say "Some of us didn't believe it back then because it wasn't defined". But that's not the point.
 * Further to the point is that when they denied infallibility they did so under advisement of several major Catholic universities


 * Montalban (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever document 70 years earlier you are referring to has nothing to do with Keenan's Catechism, and Keenan's Catechism has nothing to do with that document. Why do you keep talking about that unrelated document?  What Keenan's Catechism said is relevant to this section.  Why do you keep deleting the information about it, first on 1 October and then again yesterday?   Esoglou (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Keenan is from around 1869. It is aprox. 70 years after the documents I referred to. Perhaps you're not aware of when your own source is written? Montalban (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give any logical reason why the date of Keenan's Catechism, which I do not dispute, justifies your repeated deleting of the mention of it by the 1909 source that I cited?  What difference does it make whether it was 7, 17, 70 or 77 or any other number of years after some unrelated other documents?  Esoglou (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Although you've asked me several times, and I've answered several times, here it is again. What I cited says what it says about what Catholics of England and Ireland (and to an extent several Catholic universities) believed at that point on infallibility

It is totally irrelevant that 70 years later (and you don't seem to be certain about the date) what another document says on the matter.

The section is about objections to infallibility. Not support for -which is other sections, and in fact a majority of the article. What I put was an objection that was held at that time at that place, by those people (and again, you don't seem certain as to when that was, or whether I've cited it, or not)

In essence you want an article that is 95% pro-infallibility, tempered with what you call balance by trying to excuse examples where in the tiny part of the article objections are given - that is editorialising

Furthermore it's based on a synthesis that the article you wish to cite somehow does cancel out the earlier statements.

Good faith for you is your wish to explain away all these and call this balance

If you want to note in another section that 70 years later the church in England and Ireland changed its mind, then so be it. I have NOT objected to you including this in the article in the proper context. That is one of your own (many) inventions.

Ask me again! Montalban (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no logical reason why denials of papal infallibility by Catholics after 1789 may not be mentioned. Such a denial was made by by Keenan's Catechism said so even more than 70 years after 1789. Please be logical.  Esoglou (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I never denied that such could be written. I suggested that you don't put them in a section about objections to... I had a second objection that what is written 70 years later in no way negates what they held as their informed opinion. I would encourage you to read what I write and then perhaps re-read it. It would, I'm sure, reduce the amount of times misrepresentations are made, and the repeating of material

Montalban (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you agree that Keenan's Catechism can be mentioned, I will go ahead and mention again its denial of papal infallibility. Esoglou (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Peter Olivi
This was removed with the comment that it had nothing to do with infallibility. It has everything to do with it. The context is given in the next paragraph that a ruling on poverty was being overturned and that there was argument that it couldn't because it had been pronounced by the pope.

One is supposed to approach this with good faith. But 'good faith' here seems to be 'Catholic faith'. Montalban (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And one is supposed not to present one writer's view as the only one existing, deleting repeatedly citations of two scholars who disagree with that view. Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have an alternate view, then present it! Case solved.
 * However that doesn't address the problem of someone editing a portion out that directly has to do with the section at hand.
 * Montalban (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The case has been solved, but in your campaign of deletions you twice removed the sourced information that both James Heft and John V. Kruse contradict the view about John XXII that you sourced to August B. Hasler. (By the way, is it possible that your real source was an Internet site that gave the Hasler reference but that you prefer not to mention, thinking it more impressive to cite the perhaps unconsulted Hasler book?)  Esoglou (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I take it you didn't read what I wrote again - because of your response 'it has not been solved' Montalban (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "It has not been solved" because of your repeated deletion of the information that Hasler's is not the only view. Will you at last allow presentation of a view different from Hasler's?  Esoglou (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Several times I've pointed out that you put info in the wrong section. IF you've got something different from Hasler's view, it shouldn't be in a section on criticisms against PI. Montalban (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * May I draw your attention to the following Wikipedia policy statement:
 * All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.
 * A first step would be for you to stop deleting the attribution to Hasler of the view that you seem to want to present as the only view. Will you agree to that?  Esoglou (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I already told you, put it in the right section. I accepted when you deleted from the Ecumenical Council what I said about Catholic views in the Orthodox section on what made a Council (this by the way is the second time I've mentioned this example).
 * What you want is a rule selectively applied. (second time I've mentioned that)
 * I've been very patient in explaining these things over and over again
 * Let's try this one more time. If I consider you putting into a section about OPPOSITION to infallibility an article that supports it, so as you call it to give it balance, then are you going to support me entering into Catholic sections Orthodox view points to provide balance too?
 * Perhaps you should consider that.
 * Montalban (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The right section in which to say expressly that a certain view is that of a particular writer is the section in which the view is mentioned. Where else should it be put?!  Esoglou (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)  And so I am putting it the section that gives his view.  Esoglou (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The right section in which to say expressly that a certain view is that of a particular writer is the section in which the view is mentioned. Where else should it be put?!  Esoglou (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)  And so I am putting it the section that gives his view.  Esoglou (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

- the section is OBJECTIONS TO PAPAL...

Montalban (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hasler's opinion
Twice now the text has been re-edited to mislead the reader that an event is just the opinion of one writer - Hasler.

I've re-edited this to include two other sources

Schatz, K, (1996), Papal primacy: from its origins to the present, (The Liturgical Press; Collegeville, Minnesota) pp117-18

Tierney, B., (1972) Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350 - A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty, and Tradition in the Middle Ages (E J Brill; Leiden, Netherlands), p171

I could have included more

The quote itself is from Hasler. If people wish to re-edit that quote to say "It's the opinion of Hasler..." that's less worse than removing other coroberating references

Montalban (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Approaches to presenting criticism in Wikipedia articles
It seems to me that part of the problem in the recent discussion between Montalban and Esoglou is the question of how to organize "criticism" or "opposition" sections. For this it may be useful to read the section on presenting criticism in WP:CRITICISM. This is only an essay and not a guideline or policy but it is nonetheless worth considering. I have noticed that both this article and the one on Primacy of the Roman Pontiff suffer from the desire to separate the discussion into a "Catholic" section and an "Orthodox" or "opposition" section. This is a common approach in Wikipedia but it seems to be giving us some problems because it is not always reasonable to say "this is in support" and "that is in opposition". Sometimes the point in support and the point in opposition are related to each other and separating the discussion of the two points into two sections degrades readability. We might want to consider merging "support" and "opposition" sections into a single integrated discussion. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand your desire to support Esoglou's 'contextualising' and reducing opposition. It has no place in a nuetral discussion of the facts.
 * Montalban (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If this were really about supporting criticism I would see your objections to references being removed (that supported criticism) - done by your colleague - or where he reworked the criticism to reduce it to just Hasler's opinion

You're more than welcome to suggest what the citation of a catechism has to do with the remonstrances made on oath to parliament 70 years earlier. Montalban (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody but you, Montalban, imagines that the citation of that catechism has anything to do with what you, without specifying them or their number, call "the remonstrances made on oath to parliament 70 years earlier". Esoglou (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If it has nothing to do with it, it has no place there
 * Montalban (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Confusing the issue
Opposition to Papal infallibility is a section about Opposition to Papal infallibility

Other sections are there to show the development of Papal infallibility

Opposition to Papal infallibility takes up a tiny amount of space over-all

One person wishes to continually re-edit the material to diminish the information in the opposition section.

Wikipedia is about neutral writing Montalban (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So do you agree to undo your move of the Olivi information into the section about opposition to papal infallibility? Esoglou (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're talking about. It's the historical context of John XXII's rejection. It goes together cohesively. I'm happy of course to say that John XXII rejected it outright. If that's what you want?


 * How about we have "Papal Infallibility was rejected as the work of the devil by no less a figure than a pope; John XXII"


 * Is that really what you want?


 * There's no room for your apologetics to try and explain it all away.
 * Montalban (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I confess an ignorance rooted in a failure to read and digest Tierney's entire long discussion of the dispute over Franciscan poverty. The problem that I am having is understanding what the relevance of Olivi is to the dispute.  It seems clear from what I have read that Nicholas III ratified the efficacy of Franciscan poverty via a decree titled Exiit and that, 40 years later, John XXII sought to revoke Exiit, rejecting appeals to the irreformability of papal decrees.  But where does Olivi fit into this story?  It seems to me that Olivi's assertion of papal infallibility (or irreformability) would have been independent of Exiit.  I'm speculating that he doesn't enter into the picture until the Franciscans appeal John XXII's actions by citing Olivi's doctrine.  The problem here is that I am having to guess at these linkages and we really should connect the dots for the reader because, if I am having this problem, I would wager there are other readers who will have the same problem. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nicholas III approved the (if you like, extreme) Franciscan idea in his bull Exiit qui seminat (The Sower Went Out to Sow). Peter Olivi, an extremist Franciscan, set forth his ideas about irreversibility of papal decrees with the precise aim of making that bull permanent.  After Olivi was dead, another Pope decided to undo the decisions of the bull Exiit and found himself in a quarrel with people who took up Olivi's ideas to defend what Exiit had granted.  That is a rather over-simplified summary (which may be slightly inaccurate in some detail or other).  If I remember right, Schatz gives what I think you will find to be a very clear summary in just two pages. Esoglou (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In order to show John XXII declaring against it, it's pertinant to show what he's against, and who started it.

I'm more than happy to simply have John XXII making a statement of faith on the issue - that way too there's be no room for Esoglou's constant insertion of apologetics against the fact that Olivi was the first.

I'm not sure if he's thought this objection through because it would look even worse for his church.

Montalban (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Where to put the text about the views of Schatz and Tierney regarding Olivi's role
Regarding the discussion about Tierney, Schatz et al., I suspect most of the details provided by Esoglou (and subsequently removed by Montalban) belong in a note rather than in the body of the article. This sort of explanation is too detailed for the average reader. It should be sufficient for the article text to explain that some authors such as Tierney see Olivi as the first to propound papal infallibility whereas others question the importance of Olivi. Now, as to where to put this information, I think it should go in the section on "Theological history" (a title which I think should be changed but I'll defer getting into that for now). It is my opinion that much of the material in the EO opposition section should be moved into "Theological history" and that there should be a balanced, integrated discussion of events, declarations and opposition.

Developing this will take some time so let's just start by putting the discussion of Schatz et al. in the "Theological history" section. Esoglou, if you agree, please place the text of your original edit about Tierney, Schatz et al. in the "Theological history" section, I will move it into a note as I proposed above.

BTW, what would be really great would be finding a quote that mentions Olivi, Tierney, Schatz et al. all together and contrasts them in the way that Esoglou did.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It would indeed be great, but I think that in reality we are limited to the comments by Schatz et alii on Tierney (not on the other two sources - one of them self-published - that say Olivi was the first). Tierney started it with his controversial 1972 proposition.  I know of no writing by him in which he tried to answer the criticisms of his book.  Now I come to think of it, Schatz in a way gives a very brief indication of the dispute aroused by Tierney's book and rather than setting forth personal ideas claims to draw his conclusion from what others have said in the course of the discussion.
 * A note, rather than in the body? By all means, with whatever is mentioned in the body being strictly neutral with regard to the correctness or otherwise of Tierney's idea.
 * I seem to have ignored your request to me to move the material to the theological history section. For fear of starting an edit war between Montalban and me, I would prefer that someone else would undo Montalban's move of the material to where he has put it, especially since he has tried to defend his action in a discussion with me.  If someone else does restore it to where it was, I will support the obviously logical move.  Esoglou (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you have only copied the material back to its more logical position, without removing it from where Montalban put it. That duplication will certainly be remedied some day. Esoglou (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, my plan is to beef up the "Theological history" section to the point where significant portions of the EO opposition section will be redundant and therefore unnecessary. Montalban has a tendency to characterize "Theological history" as the "Catholic" section.  I don't see that it has to be a "Catholic" section.  It should be, IMO, an NPOV treatment of the history of the doctrine both within and without the Catholic Church.  However, we are far from that point and I see no need to incite a useless edit war at this time.  It seems there will be two parallel efforts on this article which will make it look somewhat messy for a while but I hope the end result will be an improvement over what we had before. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that they belong in a note. However the re-writes to present Catholic argument even in a section detailing arguments against turns the whole article into an example of Catholic apologetics

There is no room for partisanship here. Esoglou is unhappy that even 5% of the article has something that might be deemed against the Catholic church. Even that is just too much. That's why he's continually trying to 'contextualise' it. I could easily do the same by introducing counter-argument into every other section of the article - and have said so. But I haven't because the rest of the article is for arguments for, and evidence for the development of papal infallibility

Unfortunately for one, compromise means total surrender

If people want apologetics they can go to Catholic answers Montalban (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Montalban wrote: "I could easily do the same by introducing counter-argument into every other section of the article."

In fact, that is the approach recommended by WP:CRITICISM. WP:CRITICISM suggests that the "Opposition" section should not exist at all and that the opposing viewpoints should be presented in-line with the Catholic view. I am working towards achieving that ideal but it will take some time. That is why I have not objected to the "Opposition" section at this time. I intend to use that section as a resource for rewriting the rest of the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A Case in point

I have added into the text under Middle Ages further information about Greegory VII's assertions '''n the year 1075, Pope Gregory VII asserted in the Dictatus papae that no one could depose or judge the Pope[16]. This is seen as one step towards defining infalibility.[17]'''

It was lacking a refernce to that declartion of the pope so I added it in. That is a fact. That is what he asserted. It's where it should be. If I were to take the editorialising approach of one I'd add into it the objections made against Gregory's statements in order to 'contextualise' it. I don't because I'm not here to offer weasal words

Montalban (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Pseudo-Richard, I'm not against you putting it into the notes, even though this is imbalance (more of that in a second)
 * Do you want me to re-write the article bringing in objections to every point made about the development of infallibility???
 * That's your 'rule'. I have both the time, resources and the inclination to do this. I am trying to be peaceable about this and think that the very small section of discussion 'against' is itself properly placed.
 * As to imbalance - what you're also suggesting by your misapplication of a rule is that you can have an article 'for' something, but when a sub-section of 'against' is put in, then each one of those points can in turn be 'contextualised' out
 * The rule you cite is already satisfied by the fact that there's argument for, and against. It doesn't have to be 'for' and 'against + for'
 * Montalban (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Montalban, I pointed you at WP:CRITICISM because it is the only document I know of that makes an effort to address the issue of critical points of view. It is important to note that it is only an essay which is to say that it does not have the force of a policy or guideline.


 * My own personal experience is that the answer to how criticial points of view should be presented depends on the topic. For example, despite the fact that many Wikipedians argue against articles with titles like Criticism of Religion X, this is, in fact, the best way to handle these topics.  Thus, we have Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of the Catholic Church, etc.  I note that there is no article titled Criticism of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Presumably, the EO Church is so perfect that there are no criticisms to level at it.  ;-)


 * The main reason that I think there should not be an opposition section in this article is the fact that the story of the development of the doctrine and its opposition are just intertwined enough that one could argue the two stories are better understood when presented together than when presented separately. Now, I don't think it's an obvious decision.  IMO, it's possible to write a reasonable article with a "for" section and an "against" section.  I just think that it would be easier to follow if the "for" and the "against" points were juxtaposed together rather than split up to different parts of the article.


 * --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have changed objections - from a desire to have an 'objections to objections' to no objections section at all. I have no problem with an objections section. I see a problem with an objections to objections re-edit. If you have your solution you're opening the door to an even harsher edit war as I will add info and another will remove that to change it to his idea of 'context'. It should just be left alone, with the obligatory additions being put in their own sections, as I did in the development. Your idea also suggest clumsy reading will happen with a formula of Statement
 * but 'x' says this
 * but 'y' says this
 * but 'z' says this

Montalban (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Please differentiate between what I want and what Esoglou wants. I don't remember ever asking for "objections to objections". That's more Esoglou's style than mine.

Yeh, I don't disagree with you about the x,y,z example. I've seen that sort of thing happen in other articles. It is absolutely true that "Wikipedia articles should not appear to be arguing with themselves" which is what your x,y,z example does. Still, that does seem to be what the "Objections" section is starting to do and, if we can't stop it, then we should look at other alternatives. I will comment that the big problem with the x,y,z example is the "z". If the text can be kept simple and straightforward along the lines of X1, X2, and X3 assert A while Y1, Y2 and Y3 refute A, then it's not so bad.

My other objection to the "Objections" section is the subdivision by branch/denomination. While I understand that this is a useful and important way to understand the different objections, I suspect that the majority of objections are shared by all non-Catholic branches and denominations and so having a separate subsection for each branch/denomination serves to confuse more than it enlightens.

It is my intent to expand the "Theological history" section as much as I can. It will probably become natural to discuss some of the objections in that section. However, it is unclear to me whether all the objections can be presented in a chronological fashion. So, we may yet need an "Objections" section. Let's not insist on a decision right now. Let's see how the article evolves and the answer may become obvious as time goes on.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

One-sidedness fallacy
Please read about the one-sidedness fallacy, "one of the most common and most misleading fallacies". The editor who insists on presenting one view only on the historical question of whether Peter Olivi was or was not the first person to attribute infallibility to the Pope may be unaware that he is employing this fallacy. He ought not be unaware that he is violating the basic Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view, which requires that both sides of a disputed question should be presented (see NPOV tutorial). Tierney's 1972 thesis was adopted by Hasler and echoed by Jackson, but was rejected by Horst, Schatz, Heft, Kruse and Powell. Suppressing the view of these scholars, who had taken account of Tierney's arguments before presenting their views, is a blatant use of the one-sidedness fallacy, and needs to be corrected.

Of course, falsely presenting Powell, who says the doctrine of papal infallibility was initiated in the century after Olivi's, as declaring Olivi to be the first to propose it, is probably an even greater mistake.

By the way, religious polemics, whether attacking or defensive, have no place in this historical question. Accusing others of introducing religious polemics into the question is a violation of the Wikipedia rule of presuming good faith. Esoglou (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that like continually falsely being accused of something?
 * I have already stated twice to you I'm not against you putting "Catholic" argument in the right section
 * Montalban (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The question whether Olivi was the first is a historical question: was he or was he not? The religion of the editors is irrelevant, unless it is for reasons of religious polemics - I refrain from making any accusation that in this case the motive is in fact one of religious polemics - that an editor decides to:
 * exclude the view of several (perhaps even most?) scholars on the historical question by presenting the contrary view as certain;
 * present one of those scholars, one who explicitly states that view, as a supporter of the contrary view.
 * Either of these actions on its own, whether done for religious polemics or not, is illegitimate. Doing both together is doubly illegitimate.  Worse still is doing so repeatedly.
 * It makes no difference whether these actions are done for religious or for other motives: they are illegitimate in any case. I would ask other editors (if necessary, through a formal Request for Comment; but perhaps others will be good enough to comment without such a formal request) whether an editor who persistently repeats these actions is making a legitimate use of editing rights on Wikipedia.  And we should both abide by the decision of the Wikipedia community if we wish to be part of it.  Esoglou (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As Montalban knows, I have raised this question at Dispute resolution noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As Montalban knows, I have raised this question at Dispute resolution noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Good faith
The article is already balanced in that it gives arguments for and against Papal infallibility. The one-sidedness rule doesn't apply here because the whole article gives more than one side. One editor however is against that because they want one-side presented (positive argument) and then the opposition also presented with positive counter-argument. That is to me too much like apologetics.

I have suggested that if this approach is taken then I should be free to offer counter-arguments to every 'positive' argument, if I have the sources. This would make for a clumsy article.

I have not been against the inclusion of statements that are in opposition to Hasler's statements. I feel they should be left in the positive. I even think that adding them as notes to the negative is better - but apparently even that compromise is not enough. I don't think it's a good idea, for the same reason that 'negative' arguments could be made in notes to all the 'positive' arguments.

I could edit the statement Believers of the Catholic doctrine claim that their position is historically traceable... to
 * Although believers of the Catholic doctrine claim that their position is historically traceable... there is no direct evidence that these verses apply to infallibility

or to another statement... Pope St. Clement of Rome, c. 99, stated in a letter to the Corinthians: "Indeed you will give joy and gladness to us, if having become obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will cut out the unlawful application of your zeal according to the exhortation which we have made in this epistle concerning peace and union" (Denziger §41, emphasis added). rendered as
 * Pope St. Clement of Rome, c. 99, stated in a letter to the Corinthians: "Indeed you will give joy and gladness to us, if having become obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will cut out the unlawful application of your zeal according to the exhortation which we have made in this epistle concerning peace and union" (Denziger §41, emphasis added). However 'x' commentator notes that the Epistle is directed to the Corinthians only, who were a colony of Rome (not connected to historical Corinth) and therefore the church in Corinth would look to the Church in Rome

and so on and so on... all in the interests of avoiding a one-sided article - if that's really the rule you wish applied.

I don't believe in papal infallibility but I am not letting this get in the way of presenting a balanced article. Montalban (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If not Olivi, then who?
I think part of the problem is that we haven't heard who the alternative is to Olivi. Assuming good faith when Esoglou asserts that Schatz et al dispute the assertion that Olivi was first, the question to answer is: what is their POV? Once we understand that, we can come up with an alternative phrasing to "Olivi was the first...".

I would comment here that it doesn't seem to be clearly "Catholic" or "Orthodox" to assert that Olivi was or was not first. Even if Olivi was not first to propose it, that doesn't change the fact that John XXII rejected the Franciscan doctrine of papal infallibility 40 years later. AFAICT from what Esoglou has told me, Olivi formulated an idea which he tried to incorporate into Exiit to make the decision more permanent (the interesting question to me is "how exactly did he do this? what was the wording of Exiit in this regard?) and which John XXII later rejected as an "improper restraint on his authority".  These facts don't change even if others discussed the idea of infallibility before Olivi.  In summary, we should not spend so much time on the words "was first".  What's more important is that Olivi pushed the idea into Exiit and John XXII refused to respect the doctrine.

The discussion of alternate views as to who was first belongs in the "Theological history" section. NB: This is NOT the "Catholic" section. This should be an NPOV treatment of how the doctrine developed over time. For now, the Olivi/Nicholas III/John XXII discussion can stay in the "Objections" section.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First some disavowals. The Exiit bull said nothing of infallibility, and Olivi did not try to incorporate (an inexact choice of word) anything into it.  Olivi proposed the idea that papal bulls, such as Exiit, could not be reversed. The statement in it that Olivi wanted nailed fast for all time and that John XXII disagreed with (and the second part of which he condemned) was "the renunciation of ownership of all things both individually and in common for God's sake is meritorious is meritorious and holy; which also Christ, by showing the life of perfection, taught by word and confirmed by example."  See Rosalind B. Brooke, The Image of St Francis, pp. 97-100 for an account of the bull.  Was this an ex cathedra definition by Nicholas?  The term ex cathedra came into use later.  Olivi's term was "by the key of knowledge".  Did that mean that the statement was what would now be called an ex cathedra definition?  Was Olivi right in saying that the statement was in fact made by the key of knowledge?  When Olivi argued that the statement was irrevocable, I don't know whether he actually used the word "infallible" - that would require more than the very few minutes that are enough to trace information on, for instance, the content of the bull Exiit.  I don't even know whether Olivi explicitly connected his thesis with that particular statement in Exiit or whether he only spoke generically and has only been (probably rightly) interpreted as having had in mind that statement and that bull, on whose drafting he had himself worked.  What John XXII considered an unjustified attempted restraint on his headship of the Church was the claim by certain Franciscans (Olivi had died at the end of the preceding century) that he couldn't contradict that particular statement in Exiit.  In contrast to what is proposed in the article as an undoubted fact on the basis of a statement by Hasler and an at least partially misleading abbreviation of a statement by Tierney, Heft says John XXII always accepted papal infallibility, but did not agree that this particular statement was infallible.
 * I agree fully that "we should not spend so much time on the words 'was first'". Indeed, the only reason for mentioning any individual as first is Montalban's wish to suggest there was no idea whatever of papal infallibility until Olivi proposed it out of the blue.  If Tierney's idea that the doctrine was an unprecedented 13th-century novelty is to be mentioned, NPOV requires that opposing scholarly ideas be mentioned also.  It is by no means agreed that Olivi was in fact "the first", nor does everyone accept that what John XXII rejected was papal infallibility as such rather than a claim about the infallibility and irrevocability of a particular statement.
 * Who else is proposed as the first, you ask. Take Powell.  He says "the doctrine of papal infallibility defined at Vatican I had its origins in the fourteenth century and was itself part of a long development of papal claims" and he gives as the 14th-century individual at its origin Bishop Guido Terreni, prominently mentioned also in other studies of the question.  Schatz says that Aquinas and Bonaventure came closer to the defined doctrine than Tierney admits and that the crucial step in making it explicit occurred only in the 15th century.  Heft does not say who was the first to enunciate the doctrine: he only says that it dates back to earlier than Olivi, for he "disagrees with Tierney's thesis that the roots of papal infallibility extend only to Olivi" (Kruse's dissertation). I don't suppose Kruse, any more than Heft, attibutes the beginning to to any one individual, but he certainly doesn't agree that it must have been Olivi.
 * Is that enough? Esoglou (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Much of what you wrote above should be put into the "Theological history" section.  Then the "Objections" section could reference the incident without getting into a detailed discussion of "who's on first and what's on second". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Esoglou, in deference to the fact you wrote it and it is your knowledge that supports it, I think it would be more appropriate if you insert a cleaned-up version of the comment above into the "Theological history" section. I'll clean it up afterwards but I think it only proper that your username be attached to the original edit. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, tomorrow, please God. Esoglou (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * More, tomorrow, I hope. Esoglou (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou, you've not answered 'who was the first'

For the record the standard Catholic argument against John XXII as a denier of infallibility rests on a belief that John was not denying 'infallibility' but a misunderstanding of previous pope's ruling, and that a matter of 'form' for how an order was ruled was not a matter of faith and morals'. The bull can be found here: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/John22/qquor-e.htm

Strictly speaking I can understand this counter-argument (I note that in giving accounts of matters people put things in simple terms). John XXII simply re-interprets the rulings of not just one pope, but several; Honorius III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Alexander IV and, Nicholas III.

And that's where it's a matter of interpretation. One can argue that all those popes believed that they were talking on a matter of faith and morals. John XXII denies he's bound by their decisions by re-working their decisions to be one not of faith and morals. What he's therefore doing is denying as 'the work of the devil' (the father of lies as he calls it) attributing infallibility to the statements made by several of his predecessors.

Nicholas III's encyclical is found here http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Nichol03/exiit-e.htm He notes "The Poverty obliged by the Rule was taught and lived by Our Lord and His Apostles" something John XXII argues is not a matter of faith

The Catholic side's best argument therefore is that John XXII doesn't deny infallibility per se, but denies it when it's attributed to Popes (where those popes ruled on matters of faith and doctrine themselves) and he's not bound to it, because he can re-interpret what they said to be a matter not of faith and doctrine. Montalban (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As Whelton (in Two Paths p128) says
 * The Franciscan leaders defended this cherished papal Bull (that of Nicholas) on the grounds that it was irreformable and its very 'irrefromability' logically presupposed Papal Infallibility. John XXII was not interested in his own infallibility any more than his predecessors. For him infallibility would place him, as it would his successors, in a straitjacket, i.e., limiting the powers of the reigning pope by the infallible declarations of his predecessors.
 * He quotes the encyclical of John XXII (p129)
 * What the Roman Pontiffs have once defined in faith an morals with the key of knowledge stands so immutably that it is not permitted to a successor to revoke it
 * Montalban (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Infallibility of the Church
Although the article mentions Infallibility of the Church three times, it never really provides a good explanation of the relationship between Infallibility of the Church and Papal infallibility. The story of the debates about the authority of the pope vs. authority of a council is inadequately discussed. Apparently, some extreme ultraMontanists even argued that the infallibility of the Church was founded upon the infallibiilty of the Pope. (apologies to my Orthodox brethren, I'm just reporting what I read) The point is that the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope didn't just spring out of the genius mind of Peter Olivi. I believe there had been discussions about the nature of the infallibility of the Church and the authority of councils for hundreds of years before that. I believe we should provide this as the background context in which the doctrine of papal infallibility was conceived.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Some Catholics believe that when the pope speaks infallibly it is because the church is infallible. Hasler goes into this in his book and notes that the majority believe that the pope speaks infallibly based on his own special charism Montalban (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Apostolic poverty
Esoglou's exposition of the Spiritualist controversy over apostolic poverty is well-written and fascinating. I appreciate understanding the full context of John XXII's position. That said, I feel it is too long for this article. I haven't figured out yet exactly what to cut out but we must surely find a way to say all this in about half as much text. I think we need to ask what the key points are of this narrative relative to papal infallibility and write the text to focus on those points. Perhaps it would be helpful to remember that "Wikipedia is not paper". If these details were available in another article, we could link to that article and eliminate much of the extraneous detail from this article. I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to create an article with a title such as "apostolic poverty" or "Spiritualist controversy".

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh... I wrote the above unaware of the fact that an article on Apostolic poverty already exists. I have copied Esoglou's text into that article.  It still remains for us to figure out how to condense Esoglou's text into a much shorter presentation for this article.  I think we need text that is at most half the length of Esoglou's original text.  I hesitate to do it myself as I fear I'll butcher it. (Also, being very verbose in my writing, I hate writing summaries.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Tome
(Mentioned in the article - is this the same document referred to as the Tome of Leo...?

"Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon; 

Montalban (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Tome of Leo was addressed to Flavian of Constantinople.  Esoglou (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Olivi - leading the reader
Esoglou has removed the citations to show that Olivi was the first to proclaim infallibility. Having removed the evidence he then leads the reader back to the Catholic POV he wrote earlier in the article with the directions See ... above. Montalban (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What would be misleading would be to present a disputed view as the only one there is. The whole question is already treated in the article.  Do you want to insist that the whole question be repeated again lower down in the article?  Esoglou (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The two views are already present. If you were really interested in presenting both views, you'd have added leads from the pro-side to the against-side, which you didn't do. All you did was lead people away from one view back to the Catholic POV Montalban (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The two views are already present together, in the same place. It was to that place and so to both views that I gave the reference.  If you insist on one view being presented again further down (which to me seems silly), it must of course be accompanied there also by the opposing view: otherwise it is a POV presentation.  Please read this again.  I don't want to bring the matter to the noticeboard once more, but it seems I may have to.  Esoglou (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

They're not two views presented in the same place

It's format is as you have it
 * Catholic view
 * and
 * Opposition to Catholic view, with additional Catholic views to 'contextualise' the opposition

You've made the article into Catholic Apologetics and POV has no place on Wiki.

I'd already gone over this many times and thought that we'd settled. I could, as I noted twice before go through every single Catholic point and offer counter-points as you have done to the opposition points. Montalban (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you have reverted again. Does that mean that you want me to raise the question again on the noticeboard?  Esoglou (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've already given my view point to the article. I thought you read that? Montalban (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And those who commented on the noticeboard did not find your viewpoint convincing. So back again?  Esoglou (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What part of the previous sentence of mine is unclear? Montalban (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Esoglou, please provide a link to the noticeboard discussion. I never read the responses.  Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A new one, or the old? The old didn't actually deal with my objection as per your comment and that of another Montalban (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave the link above, asking Montalban to read what it leads to. Here it is again.  In view of the general consensus, I was authorized to undo, at last, Montalban's insistent edit, so as to see how he would react.  He seemed to accept the deletion, and so I declared that I would ask no more than that, and the question was closed and archived.  Esoglou (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. It appears that there was not a clear consensus in the discussion in favor of your position.  In fact, IMHO, many of the uninvolved editors failed to really grasp the issue and thus failed to provide useful suggestions.  The issue was closed largely because Montalban had stopped participating in the discussion and so the suggestion was to implement your view and see if he objected.  Now, he is belatedly objecting but the lateness does not invalidate his objection especially given the lack of substantive comments on the noticeboard.  At the risk of arrogance, I will assert that my comment was the most substantive viz. we should stop being concerned about whether Olivi was the first to propose infallibility and simply say that he did propose it and that 40 years later a pope rejected the notion.  Whether Olivi was first or not does not change the point that Montalban is really trying to make which is that a later pope rejected the proposed doctrine as restrictive of his authority.  I don't understand why Montalban is unwilling to yield on this point when admitting a lack of clarity re Olivi's "firstness" doesn't weaken his point about John XXII rejecting the doctrine. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When I spoke of consensus, I was echoing what Stradivarius said about undoing Montalban's edit: "That seemed to be the consensus of the other uninvolved editor and I, so it is probably a reasonable step to make."
 * I wish everyone were as logical and reasonable as you. Esoglou (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus of one independent poster commenting on a point I didn't push?

Montalban (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Linking to a closed thread doesn't help much either, I don't believe. It wasn't to whether Olivi was first. It was to having a mention of Olivi in the 'pro' section with Catholic apologetics added to it to contextualising it in favour of Catholic POV, and then in the opposition section doing it again. For each 'negative' point there had to be, so it seems, another Catholic source to draw people back to the Catholic argument. I had noted that I could have done the same for each catholic point - I even bolded that with examples. Montalban (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK... it helps to understand that you are not insisting that Olivi was the first. Can we agree to not make that assertion anywhere in the article?  I think you'll find that Esoglou has an annoying insistence on making sure that there are no factual inaccuracies in articles, no matter where they show up.  Since the question of whether Olivi was first or not doesn't affect the Orthodox argument that a pope actually rejected the concept of papal infallibility, why don't we just rewrite the text so it focuses on that point and not get caught up with the text saying that Olivi was first.


 * I'm hoping that Esoglou would be willing to reduce the verbiage from the "Orthodox" section if the text did not assert that Olivi was first. It may be that he still feels that some explanation of Olivi's position is necessary but hopefully we can discuss his concerns and come to a mutually agreeable compromise that reduces the amount of explanatory text.


 * --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * that was never my issue. The issue was that there were two sections created (not by me, I simply came to this format). There was a section for
 * arguments FOR infallibility, and;
 * arguments AGAINST infallibility
 * as it stood Olivi came up directly in a capacity of AGAINST. That's what several arguing against used, him as the start point and the suggestion a pope argued against him

HOWEVER
 * already having a FOR section Esolgou wanted to add to the AGAINST section with additional pro-Catholic argument to contextualise it, that is, to answer this criticism with texts in support of the Catholic POV.
 * I suggested that this simply changes the whole article to a Catholic Q&A where you have two sections
 * arguments FOR, and;
 * arguements AGAINST with additional arguments FOR attached to contextualise it
 * THEREFORE the only reason I have been arguing about Olivi here is because it sits within an AGAISNT section which is ALREADY in balance in the article because there's a FOR section also.
 * This is my consistant argument. I had previously had to fight his re-edits on the Catholic remonstrances to parliament as he continued to add in additional pieces of information to try and steer this back to a Catholic POV.
 * It's not my format, the FOR and AGAINST sections. But I'm happy with it if we were to keep them separate and balanced.
 * I had noted how I could have simply gone through many of the FOR arguments and added further details in the name of 'balance'.
 * It has been a consistant battle on this and several threads over the exact same issue - the strong desire of the Catholic POV to will out against all other view points.
 * Montalban (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I've misunderstood what the problem was. It did seem to me that the issue was about Olivi being first.

Along the same lines as the discussion we are currently having over at the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, I wonder if we shouldn't just meld in the FOR and AGAINST sections and see what happens. Right now, the structure of this article is quite a jumble. Articles get that way if there is no one overseeing the overall structure and making sure that new stuff gets put in the right place in the outline. Would you agree to melding the FOR and AGAINST sections into one integrated narrative? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Although it's sloppy in that some issues are covered twice - such as Olivi, it's also neater for a reader who wishes to see arguments FOR or AGAINST but then readers might want to read all arguments at once.
 * Sorry, I seem uncertain. I thought everyone (but one) was happy with just FOR and AGAINST.
 * It would be a major task.
 * Montalban (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On this question there is no FOR section. There is a historical section giving the views expressed by modern scholars both for and against the Tierney thesis, and there is at present, on the insistence of one editor, another section where the Tierney thesis is falsely presented as undisputed fact.  That editor seems to think that any section not arguing explicitly for his ideas is arguing against them instead of trying to present a balanced account.
 * The consensus expressed on the noticeboard was by all the uninvolved editors, even if these were only two, since by his own definition, Richard was classified as involved. It was not a "consensus of one independent poster"!   Esoglou (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the opinions of only one or two editors, even if uninvolved, is a very thin consensus indeed. (By "thin consensus", I mean a consensus that can easily be overturned with just a few additional editors.)  As I indicated, I don't have the sense that the other editors really looked at or understood the issue and so their opinions are of little weight.  If we can't resolve this amongst ourselves, the next step is probably an RFC but those take time.


 * I would much prefer that Montalban find a way to make his point without insisting on asserting that Olivi was "the first". Montalban claims that Esoglou insists on "contextualizing" the point about Olivi and John XXII.  I'm not clear on what that "contextualizing" is and how it re-inserts the Catholic POV.  Esoglou's text included this sentence:


 * Klaus Schatz says Olivi by no means played the key role assigned to him by Tierney, who failed to acknowledge the work of earlier canonists and theologians, and that the crucial advance in the teaching came only in the 15th century, two centuries after Olivi; and he declares that "it is impossible to fix a single author or era as the starting point".


 * I personally think that it's too many words to have if all we're trying to do in the "Orthodox objections" section is to say that John XXII rejected infallibility as an unwarranted restriction on his own authority. AFAICT, the only reason Esoglou inserted all that text was to counter the assertion that "Olivi was first".  If we can find a different locution, I have the hope that Esoglou will not feel the need for all that extra verbiage.


 * --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was indeed a thin consensus, but still a consensus. Others could have overturned it, or instead they could have confirmed it.  As shown below, the alleged priority of Olivi, on which you have concentrated, was far from being the only problem.  It was only a decidedly minor problem: Olivi, long dead before John XXII made any declaration, is really irrelevant to the thesis that John XXII rejected papal infallibility, a thesis not commonly accepted.  Indeed I do not remember even Tierney claiming that Nicholas III's statement in the bull Exiit qui seminat was an ex cathedra declaration.  In that case, when John XXII rejected the claim by the Franciscan Spirituals that Nicholas III's statement was irreversible, he was no more denying papal infallibility than Cardinal Gibbons was when commenting on Pius IX's mistake of calling him Jibbons (see footnote 14)!  And I am surprised that the anti-infallibilist editor has not yet come across the more common objection that the same John XXII himself expounded heresy in his statements about delayed beatific vision!  These too were not ex cathedra declarations.  Esoglou (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So does the NPOV basic pillar of Wikipedia allow presentation as certain that John XXII denied papal infallibility? Esoglou (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)