User talk:Pobidoq

Apostolic Succession
Thank you for your heads up on your rewrite (which I saw just a few minutes ago--having not logged on to Wikipedia for some time). Something had to happen to integrate anew the article. My own efforts (in mid-September) had resulted in an accidental duplication of various sections, due to two or more people working on the article at the same time.

A major aim of my September contributions was to reorder the article, to make it more structured and easier to follow, as well as to remove confusion and add balance. But my efforts were quickly undone. Not wanting to seek to impose my own solutions on this sensative topic, I refrained from contesting the resistence to my efforts, for in the pending status of the article my text was in fact included (although at the price of the duplication noted above). I was satisfied to wait, with the hope that someone might come along and break the stalemate by achieving a new synthesis, a consensus. In the meantime I became very busy elsewhere with non-Wikipedia business, etc.

My own preference had been to restore my restructure of the article per my September efforts, and so remove the duplication. [This is somewhat confusing. My September rewrite started with a different short intro section (in the duplication it was misplaced as the last paragraph of the "Methodist" section), then followed my first section on "Traditional Doctrine", etc., with my restructure ending just before the "Mormon" section. My restructure had the conscious purpose of including the content of the existing article in a more orderly sequence; but instead both the pre-existing article and my restructure were both conserved in the pending article, hence the duplication.] Yet by such wholesale removal (of the pre-existing) I would have risked further resistence (e.g., it would eliminate the opening section on "Doctrinal Continuity" as a reform era redefinition of traditional apostolic succession, for the reasons that: (1) its substance was repeated in the "Contra" section of my September rewrite, and (2) it was out of place. [I did research the history of the article and found that originally the "Doctrinal Continuity" section had appeared in historical order in the middle of the article, but that it had been relatively recently moved to the lead position--I think earlier this year. I had placed this information in the article's discussion page.] In addition, I had made notes to myself about adding commentary on the Reform ecclesiastical organization which Calvin had proposed to replace the traditional episcopal order, quoting his Institutes of the Christian Religion (which I think is the source of the "Doctinal Continuity" section), and also to make brief reference to the current organization of other reform churches, e.g., the Baptists (periodic conferences), the independents, etc.

So it was very welcome to receive your message about your recent work on the article. I will not have the time to read, much less study, the current existing article this week, but your work seems to be the timely improvement. Having survived a week, perhaps it will remain in place for the time being. Well done.

Elfelix 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Modification of the above. Elfelix (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Today I read over much of the current article on Apostolic Succession. The major flaws (especially the egregious duplication) in the article have been remedied, and further many unexpected additions have been made to very much improve the article.

The inappropriateness of leading with the section "Doctrinal Continuity" has been mitigated by the very apt, boxed quotation from Tertullian's Prescription against Heresy prominently displayed. [There is still some duplication, as much of the content of this "Doctrinal Continuity" section is included in the restructured "Contra" section. But the obvious and wholesale duplication has been removed, leaving only this buried instance.]

Also much appreciated was the citation to Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses. In the pre-existing article from mid-September, the "Doctrinal Continuity" section mentioned Irenaeus (citing a need for congruence in apostolic succesion and orthodox teaching), with the reference given being to the effect, "as stated" without there being any "as stated" to be found. Later, I discovered that this same Irenaeus quotation to be the apparent citation given by Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Relgion, which also, on superficial inquiry, was no where to be found; yet I suspect that in Calvin there is that Irenaeus citation somewhere.

For these changes, as well as others, the article remains markedly improved!

Elfelix (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)