Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

General tags

I do believe that there are general disputes on the accuracy and neutrality of this article; the coverage of the Great Schism is seriously flawed; its overall coverage of the treatment of Roman Catholicism in Mexico, Spain, and Croatia is Ultramontane to the point of error. But I am prepared to discuss what general tags are most appropriate; if specific local tags are reverted again, I will take this question elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If every editor with a disagreement places a tag in this article, it will forever have a string of tags. Consensus will never (and need not be) 100% agreement. Since your particular issues are currently being discussed, it's best to leave out the endless plastering of tags in the article. It just invites more edit warring, as if there isn't enough of that already. The better approach is to bring it to the talk page and let editors deal with it, as is currently being done. The space dedicated to these issues is enormous. Let's not start adding to it by having arguments about whether to have corresponding tags while the discussion is taking place. --anietor (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If every editor with a disagreement places a tag in this article, it will forever have a string of tags. This is the inevitable result of writing a party pamphlet and not an article; the way to avoid it is to make only those assertions which are consensus, and using only those sources which unambiguously support those claims. If Anietor continues to edit war against acknowledging disagreement, there are ways of dealing with disingenuous blanking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Anietor also lies in his edit summaries. He blanked the local tags, alleging that they should have been discussed in talk first; I have done little else on this talk page, and Harmakleru has done virtually nothing else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

However, I think we have made significant progress towards addressing these issues and the issues do not represent such major problems as to warrant "general" tags at the top of the article. I have put in Harmakheru's proposed replacement text in the lead. I believe that it parallels the Catechism very closely. Most of the relevant passages in the Catechism are referenced in the "Mission and origins" section with direct quotations so those can be used to check the accuracy of the lead. When I get time, I'll move those citations into the lead.

I also commented out the bit about "papal primacy" being the major cause of the Great Schism. That is historically wrong because it glosses over the complexity of what happened and completely fails to mention that the Orthodox consider the Catholics heretics. (i.e. it's the Catholic POV that "papal primacy" is the only obstacle; the Orthodox haven't bought into that wholly) There's no easy way to distill that down into half a sentence for the lead so I figured it was easier to say nothing than to distort the truth.

Finally, I removed the tags. If you feel that they are still warranted, please raise the issue here first and then put the tags on if the response is unsatisfactory.

--Richard (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the present controversy, there are endemic problems with the rest of the article. I observe that History of the Catholic Church has such tags, for example. But without the energy to thrash out those issues, I do not intend to restore them myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard. It's always good to see editors focus on improving the article as opposed to plastering tags all over the place and making personal attacks when things don't go their way. --anietor (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Efforts to improve the article are continually reverted, often by the editor who makes this complaint; tags are a second choice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Certain people's "efforts to improve the article" seem to consist of trying to fill it with every negative fable, stereotype and urban legend available - generally with the vaguest of attributions. The fact that some people are going to dislike it when they don't find all their prejudices, true or untrue, confirmed in the article, is a given. Very few other topics have the same level of legends, exagerrations and incorrect assumptions made about them than Catholicism. Although some other potentially controversial subjects such as Islam, Evolution, Israel, the United States, etc. have the same problem. That's why we have to be VERY clear about balance, due weight, and accuracy/attribution of material added to the page. And everyone doesn't get to permanently plaster tags all over the place in an improper manner just because the tone doesn't suit them. On the issue of balance, this page is more critical of its subject than similar WP pages or than articles in Britannica and other encyclopedias. Xandar 00:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to get this article to follow academic scholarship, the words of the Catechism, and the New Catholic Encyclopedia. The rest of this appears to be projection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there two Catholicisms?

I was looking for more info about the College Theology Society survey run by Johnson, Doyle and Barnes and ran across this article. This is making a different though related point from the one we're using the CTS survey for. Nonetheless, I found the article interesting and am thinking of inserting into the article in an appropriate location. Yes, it's a bit dated (1996) but it's more recent than the CTS survey. Any comments on whether this is worth including in the article and where? --Richard (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard, we can use it if you like. FYI, we have covered this topic in the article already, its in the History section under "Vatican II and beyond". The text is cited to Bokenkotter and reads "Changes to old rites and ceremonies following Vatican II produced a variety of responses. Although most Catholics "accepted the changes more or less gracefully", some stopped going to church and others tried to preserve what they perceived to be the "true precepts of the Church".[433] The latter form the basis of today's Traditionalist Catholic groups, which believe that the reforms of Vatican II have gone too far. Liberal Catholics form another dissenting group, and feel that the Vatican II reforms did not go far enough. The liberal views of theologians such as Hans Küng, and Charles Curran, led to Church withdrawal of their authorization to teach as Catholics.[434]" NancyHeise ^talk 01:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, you're right. What I presented doesn't say anything new that isn't already covered in the article text. Thanx. --Richard (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Further References

Here's what the Oxford History of Christianity has to say on the Church's origins:

Rome. Combating second-century Gnosticism, Irenaeus appealed to the 'public' doctrine taught in the churches of apostolic foundation by the successive bishops, and especially cited the succession-list of Rome, 'the very large, ancient, and universally known church founded by the two glorious apostles Peter and Paul' - for (Irenaeus adds) all believers everywhere in every church are necessarily in agreement with Rome as an apostolic foundation with a cosmopolitan membership and extensive dealings with other churches. ... Towards the latter part of the 1st century, Rome's presiding cleric named Clement wrote on behalf of his church to remonstrate with the Corinthian Christians who had ejected clergy without either financial or charismatic endowment in favour of a fresh lot; Clement apologized not for intervening but for not having acted sooner. Moreover, during the second century the Roman community's leadership was evident in its generous alms to poorer churches. About 165 they erected monuments to their martyred apostles, to Peter in a necropolis on the Vatican Hill, to Paul on the road to Ostia, at the traditional sites of their burial. Roman bishops were already conscious of being custodians of the authentic tradition of true interpretation of the apostolic writings. In the conflict with Gnosticism Rome played a decisive role, and likewise in the deep division in Asia Minor created by the claims of the Montanist prophets..

This is written by H Chadwick, not a "Vatican apologist", and pretty clearly shows the continuance and leading status of the Church of Rome from the Apostolic period. Xandar 23:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, this is what they have to say about the origins of the See of Rome. Whether this is the same subject is the point at issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, what Chadwick writes here is entirely correct as far as I know--but it does not prove the point you are trying to make. Yes, Rome intervened in a dispute at Corinth toward the end of the first century (although how much this intervention was "fraternal" and "pastoral" as opposed to "authoritative" is very much disputed). Yes, in the second century Rome was a bulwark against heresy and contributed greatly to other churches in all sorts of ways. Yes, by the middle of the second century Rome was "already conscious" of its responsibilities as guardian of the authentic apostolic tradition, and it had a real bishop who began to exercise some measure of authority elsewhere, although not without resistance from other bishops, and nothing like the sort of authority he came to have later. (Chadwick himself dates the first Roman exercise of foreign "jurisdiction" to AD 190.)

But none of this demonstrates any actual continuity between the Christian communities of Rome in the time of Peter, and the Church of Rome that did all the things Chadwick describes as taking place in the late first century and thereafter. Yes, for centuries historians motivated by confessional allegiances glossed over that gap and bridged it with traditions and legends, but that does not prove they were right to do so; and today's historians largely dismiss those traditions and legends as worthless, or very nearly so, except for the probability (not certainty) that Peter did go to Rome and was martyred there. As these historians say again and again, beyond these two probable facts, we know almost nothing about what happened at Rome between Peter and Clement. Although Chadwick recounts Irenaeus' statement about Peter and Paul, that doesn't mean he is endorsing it as actual history; Chadwick himself, in his Early Church, explicitly says that "we have no information whatever about [Peter's] activity" at Rome, so his citation of Irenaeus seems intended not to detail what actually happened at Rome in the first century but rather to demonstrate the development of the second-century traditions about Rome. Not the same thing at all. Harmakheru (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Harmakheru, I think that you - and probably some other revisionist historians - are demanding unreasonable levels of 2,000 year old documentation on this issue, BECAUSE it is this issue. The simple fact is that the "gap" you are now alleging is down to the 30 years between Peter/Paul, and Clement. I would certainly call Chadwick and others "today's" historians, and while he suggests continuity over this period, he IN NO WAY suggests any significant organisational breach, certainly not one that would deny the continuity the passage above emphasizes. If he had thought such a breach had occurred, he would have said so. I think those who dismiss the "traditions and legends" (as you call them) of Peter in Rome as worthless, probably have an agenda (denying authority to the CC) and are in denial of the points quoted here and in other references below. There are the early Church histories and early letters, claiming (without contemporary contradiction, as far as I know,) that Peter and Paul led the Church in Rome, and that this placed the the Church in a doctrinal leadership role. We also have archaeological evidence from just a century later backing up the presence of the Apostles in Rome. We are not denying that some historians deny continuity for various reasons. We are simply saying saying that valid historians support that continuity. Xandar 10:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You can think whatever you want about my supposed motives, but the fact that you continually dismiss scholars of the stature of Brown, Meier, Cullmann, and Kelly as "the odd fringe historian" and "liberal revisionists" says volumes about where you are coming from. The attitude you have repeatedly shown in this discussion and the vocabulary you have used to denigrate your opponents and their sources only serves to confirm the suspicions about your motives--i.e., that you and Nancy are trying to use Wikipedia as a tool for conservative Catholic apologetics. How nice it would be for you to be able to point to the supposedly impartial and authoritative Wikipedia article on the Catholic Church as proof that Jesus founded the Catholic Church, just like the Church has always said! No wonder you refuse to let go of it without a fight--and no wonder that when anyone points out that you have no proper sources to back up your claims, and suggests that those claims be deleted for lack of proper sourcing (as Wikipedia policy requires), you blow a gasket.

The "early Church histories" and other documents you mention as supporting your view do not appear, at the earliest, until almost a century after the events in question (most of them are several centuries later) and they demonstrably represent a developing ecclesiastical apologetic tradition, not history proper. (The fact that there are few if any surviving contemporary writings which contradict this tradition just might have something to do with the fact that all such writings were gathered up and burned by order of the Emperor when Catholicism became the dominant religion of the Empire. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," especially when determined efforts are made to make all the evidence disappear.) When real historians begin to examine such materials more objectively, they frequently find that there is little reason to believe the claims that are being made, as the authors provide only bare assertions in support of a predefined sectarian position, without any supporting evidence or argument. That may be enough for people who are already confessionally committed to those positions anyway, but they are not proper history, and can't be cited as such. As for the alleged "agenda" of those who question the traditional view, it should be pointed out that both Brown and Meier are Catholics, and that their book Antioch and Rome has the nihil obstat and imprimatur. In their book they state their expectation that they will be accused by traditionalist Catholics of being anti-papist, and by others of being pro-papist, when in fact all they are trying to do is to follow the facts wherever they lead. Unless you have some good reason (beyond personal prejudice and belief) to accuse them of having ulterior motives or of not being honest with their materials, then calling them "fringers" and "revisionists" is just name-calling, and does nothing to help your position.

While you may not deny that "some" historians disagree with your position, you do continually trash them with epithets which seem designed to bracket them with holocaust-deniers and other loonies, despite their obvious credentials and the overwhelming number of citations reported by Google Scholar. On the other hand, your claim that there are "valid historians" supporting your position is still itself not properly supported, and you and Nancy have had to resort to all sorts of chicanery and special pleading to try to twist nonsupporting sources into providing some kind of support nonetheless. If there really are "valid historians" who support your position, all you have to do is find some and provide the proper citations. So far, you haven't been able to do that. Harmakheru (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also the following from the article on Peter in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church 1997:

Tradition connecting Peter with Rome is early and unrivalled. Against it can be placed only the silence of the NT, but even here Rom 15 20-2 may point to the presence of another Apostle in Rome before Paul wrote, and the identification of 'Babylon' in 1 Pet. 5:13 with Rome seems highly probable. Clement of Rome (1 Clem 5) conjoins Peter and Paul as the outstanding heroes of the faith, and probably implies that Peter suffered martyrdom. St Ignatius quotes words (Rom 4:2) which suggest that Peter and Paul were the Apostles of special authority for the Roman Church, and St Irenaeus (Ad. Haer. 3.1.2., 3.3.1) states definitely that they founded the Church and instituted its episcopal succession. Other early witnesses to the tradition are Gaius of Rome and Dionysius of Corinth. ... There are historical grounds for believing that the tomb in St Peter's, Rome, is authentic. Xandar 23:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

All true, but again it doesn't prove your point. Most modern authorities consider it likely that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there; this is not really in dispute anymore, but his presence and martyrdom at Rome doesn't prove that he founded the Church there or was its first bishop or established an apostolic succession there. Clement is indeed a witness to the belief that Peter and Paul were heroes and martyrs, but he does not say that they founded the Church at Rome. Ignatius does suggest that by his day Peter and Paul were considered especially authoritative by the Roman Church, but Ignatius is writing ca. AD 107--and even he does not say that Peter and Paul founded the Roman Church, or hint at any special apostolic succession derived from them there. It is not until Irenaeus that we finally find such a claim--almost a century after the events--and most modern historians consider the claim to be legendary and/or apologetic rather than historical. Harmakheru (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The point about whether Peter or Paul founded the Church in Rome is tangential. The principal point is that the Catholic Church based in Rome is historically a/the direct CONTINUATION of the Church they led. That is certainly supported. Xandar 10:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so far; you still haven't provided proper references for this. Earlier you stated your position thus: "What we are talking about is the recognition by historians that the Catholic Church is that same Church founded by Peter in Rome - which is an important thing." (How odd that you now claim this "founding" is "merely tangential", when before you said it was "important". Which is it?) Then you go on to say, "Rome is where Peter and his successors remained in continuing leadership of the Church." So by your own admission, your position stands or falls on the continuity of leadership between Peter and his alleged "successors" at Rome. This is precisely why the thirty-year gap in the documentation between Peter and Clement is so important, and why so many modern historians have become reluctant to back your claim: This alleged "continuity" simply cannot be demonstrated historically, because there is no evidence whatever to support it. We do not know that Peter even had "successors" at Rome, or how such a succession might have been implemented, or whether it was interrupted for any significant period of time. The actual historical record (as opposed to sectarian apologetic arguments made generations after the fact) simply offers no evidence whatever for any of this. One may as a matter of "faith" bridge that gap with assumptions and traditions and legends, but one may not then turn around and call what one is doing "history". It isn't. Harmakheru (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally there is this from the article on the Church in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (ed. Cross and Livingstone 1997 OUP):

soon after the Ressurection gentiles began to join the Hellenists or Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, probably first in Antioch (cf Acts 11:20). Paul's gentile mission and especially the epistles which he wrote in the 50s laid foundations for the Gentile Christianity which became dominant after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 and the expulsion of Jewish Christians from synagogues in the 80s. This 'parting of the ways' between Church and synagogue marked a large step in the emerging of early Catholic Christianity around 100 AD. ... After the death of St James (the Great), Paul and Peter in the 60s and the marginalizing of Jewish Christianity, new structures were needed and Church order developed. The memory of the Apostles was cherished and the emerging orthodoxy of the 2nd century aimed to be 'apostolic' in all things, repudiating as heretics those who were not. The essence of the Church was later epitomized in the traditional 'notes of the Church', namely unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. The concept is already present in Ephesians, though the term 'the catholic church' first occurs in St Ignatius (Ep. ad Smyrn., 8.2). As teaching the Apostles doctrine and historically descended from them, the Church is apostolic.

Once again this is firm backing for the Apostolic continuity of the Church from reputable historians, contrary to what has been claimed. Xandar 23:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Notice the wording: "the emerging of early Catholic Christianity around 100 AD", and "the emerging orthodoxy of the 2nd century", and the "essence of the Church" being "later epitomized" by catholicity and apostolicity. This "emergence" and "later epitomizing" could itself be taken as evidence of discontinuity between the apostolic age and the beginning of the second century; if Catholic Christianity was actually continuous with the apostolic age, then there would be no need for it to "emerge" from it--it would already be it. What you cite here just as easily supports the view that the apostolic deposit was "appropriated" by the Roman Church (and perhaps others) toward the end of the first century, rather than standing in historical continuity with it. Harmakheru (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And this is not the only example of careful phrasing. Observe from Chadwick that Clement is a "presiding cleric". He could just as easily have written Bishop - if he had meant to assert that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Making the quote from Chadwick with which this begins into:

  Early in the history of the early Christian church, the See of Rome began to be asked to arbitrate theological disputes that arose between other bishops. Henry Chadwick cites a letter from Pope Clement I to the church in Corinth (c. 95) as evidence of a presiding Roman cleric who exercised authority over other churches. Other scholars disagree with these interpretations.[26]

ignores the care of Chadwick's phrasing: he does not say Pope, and does not say authority. (This is also a dispute among the Corinthians, not between bishops.)Readers who consult our sources should find that they say what we do, not something quite different. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 10:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Prelate of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church calls Pope "Bishop of Rome"

http://www.kaldu.org/2009/10/Oct24_09E3.html

Line 18 from the Bottom. So in fact, the status of the Pope is recognized by non-Roman Catholics who are not in full communion with Rome. Make with this as you please. Gabr-el 21:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Orthodox do not deny that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. Nor do they deny that the Bishop of Rome has a right to the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. What they do dispute is what those primacies mean. They consider him "first among equals" (primus inter pares) rather than a monarchical ruler. See Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences for a fuller explanation. --Richard (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, I know all that. The point of me putting that up there was to refute the idea that only Catholics think the Pope is from Peter. It shows that an Apostolic Church other than the one headed by Rome recognizes this. See the fruitless warring about the historian thing above and below if you will. Gabr-el 23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Orthodox and the Anglicans acknowledge that the current Bishop of Rome is the legitimate successor of Simon Peter doesn't affect the historical truth of the "traditional narrative" in which Peter founds a church in Rome and serves as its bishop. We have long acknowledged that the Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans have a common belief wrt this narrative. That doesn't make it true. --Richard (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Members of all three faiths have held the traditional narrative; members of all three faiths hold it to be (except perhaps for Peter's martyrdom) unsupported by evidence; what they agree on - except for extreme polemics - is that Benedict is Bishop of Rome. They do not agree (except verbally) on the powers of the Bishop of Rome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 10:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No Section on Ecumenism?

It seems to me that a major dimension of the historical period, Catholic_Church#Second_Vatican_Council_and_beyond is the ecumenical movement. Could we not have a short paragraph included there with a main article reference?--EastmeetsWest (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add one; we shall see whether it gets reverted too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, now... let's not get carried away... ("we shall see whether it gets reverted too"). Nancy and Xandar may exhibit a tad too much [[WP:|ownership]] but they're not totally unreasonable. Please leave your emotion at the door and try to keep discourse on this page civil. --Richard (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If I were carried away, that would have been a prediction, not a proposed experiment. ;-> As for reasonability, it's like the reign of -er- Romulus; I have seen no evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am only advocating a couple of sentences and a link. What do people think? --EastmeetsWest (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. Just a note if you haven't seen it already, there are two sentences in the first paragraph of Second Vatican Council and beyond section and another two in Present Day. Some more could be said on this subject I think, thanks for helping. NancyHeise ^talk 23:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Some cleanup

I have not eliminated any information added by Richard and Harmakheru. I have kept all new references but because there was significant redundancy in the Origins and Mission section both regarding the Church's position and opposing scholars. I eliminated the redundancy and rescued some information that had previously been discarded. Here's the section before my edits [2] and after [3]. Because the article text now discusses the scholarly dispute in more detail than before, I think it justifies its mention in the lead even more so I kept that as well. I want to say that I think this version is better than before, I appreciate Harmakheru's efforts and I apologize if I was not as appealing to work with as he/she desired. I hope he/she realizes that they were not so wonderful to work with either. I would like to ask for more civility in the future, thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 21:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think the survey is irrelevant and misleading here, and that we can't have two separate quotes from Duffy in this passage - which gives his voice undue weight. Xandar 00:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be reworded to eliminate reference to Duffy but he is the most respected source we can use to document that particular POV. I am wondering if the section could be trimmed by putting the sentences about the survey and ARCIC into a note since this information supplements the preceeding sentence. We are violating WP:undue if we don't but lets see what others think before we change it. NancyHeise ^talk 00:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just taking a look at this again and saw a way to eliminate this redundancy without losing any facts or references. I have gone ahead and made the change. [4] let me know what you think. NancyHeise ^talk 00:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I will be away on vacation for the next few days. I will miss being able to observe and at times take part in the extensive discussion on this article. (I wonder if this is how the debates in the U.S. Continental Congress went ....) I think a lot of progress has been made. I look forward to catching up (or rejoining in midstream; please excuse the mixed metaphors) when I return. Eagle4000 (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar that the section on "Origin and mission" is too long, the CTS survey is only one data point from 20 years ago and can therefore not be a true picture of what Catholic theologians believe and the ARCIC position is also potentially misleading. I appreciate Nancy keeping it all in but I think it is more suited to a Note than to the main article text. I have done this. --Richard (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I just came to the page again today and someone tossed a whole lot of our refs and wording calling the scholars who agree that the Church was founded by Jesus "Apologists". None of these authors are described as "apologists" and we need to have a reliable reference if anyone insists on inserting that label upon them. The three authors are all very respected historians, their works meet WP:reliable source examples and none of them have any bad reviews in scholarly journals. I can't find anything that says they are "apologists" writing anything other than history. NancyHeise ^talk 16:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the editor who did this, see this edit [5] this is vandalism. He/she completely eliminated our refs - and then calls them apologists with no discussion or link to show that scholars call them apologists because in fact, there are no scholars calling these legitimate historians anything other than this. Even if they did, it is a point of view that would be required to be presented as coming from an expert in the field of history of the Catholic Church. Please see that the Derrett ref was entirely eliminated - I don't even know if Derrett is Catholic so how can anyone assume he is an apologist? NancyHeise ^talk 17:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, this is absolutely not vandalism, it is ordinary editing that you happen to disagree with. Just because text is in the article does not mean it has to stay there forever, especially when others disagree with whether the text accurately reflects the source. It would be best to discuss what you don't like about the change rather than revert. Karanacs (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, this is why I find you so unhelpful - I was not the one reverting - I was the one discussing and making changes to the article after carefully listening to what has been said. All refs have been kept by me yet this editor tosses them and changes wording without discussion and you immediately come to their defense when I point it out. NancyHeise ^talk 18:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone modified the text in the article. You removed that modification (thus reverted their edit). It is not your responsibility to judge whether any change can be made. You are much too quick to revert other people's changes, Nancy, which is why several editors here have accused you of article ownership. Karanacs (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't think the edit history would bear that up. See the first edit in this section. You are too quick to side with anyone who disagrees with me, Karanacs. I don't think that you make the effort to see the whole story before doing so either. NancyHeise ^talk 18:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nancy on this. Nancy has gone to great lengths to work with everyone on addressing the various issues being raised, and engages in discussion on this talk page. By contrast, other edits, like Pmanderson, make wholesale changes based on their own POV, often disregarding consensus with an "I really know better than the rest" attitude. To make matters worse, They then plaster the article with tags when things don't go their way. It's as if some editors are going out of their way to instigate edit wars. The Church is 2000 years old, this article has a long history as well... can we all be patient and address things in here calmly without rushing to slash sections and throw up tags every 30 minutes? --anietor (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The model I like is "bold, revert, discuss". Not everything has to be discussed in advance but editors who are bold have to be willing to be reverted and editors who revert have to be willing to discuss their objections. The feeling that some editors "own" the article comes when those who revert seem too arbitrary in insisting that their version triumph over others. Above all, collegiality and collaboration are keys to making progress on this and all articles in Wikipedia. --Richard (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now edited the section to remove what seem to me the same inconsistencies between source and text we have spent a week discussing; I was reversted. I tagged, to mark a dispute, being at that point short of time. I shall in due course tag locally, to mark what the disputes are; will I be reverted at that. This seems a nice catch-22; I wonder at what point I am entited to conclude bad faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sept, the problem is that, without discussion, you "remove what seem to me" instead of what everyone has discussed and worked toward. We can't come to compromise solutions if they aren't discussed and you can't expect your edits to stick if a lot of people disagree with you. NancyHeise ^talk 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, everybody, there are two issues here that need immediate attention: the first is edit-warring. Let's not edit war over the article text or the tags. PMAnderson has raised issues with the sourcing. Others such as Karanacs, Harmakheru and myself are in agreement. Nancy is not. Now is the time to stop edit-warring and move to discussion. It may be that we need to go through another poll and more discussion to resolve this. However, edit warring is not acceptable. I will report edit-warring to WP:AN/EW and ask an uninvolved admin to step in if the edit-warring does not stop.

The second issue that needs to be addressed immediately is civility. Nancy's feelings have been hurt as editors who disagree with her have laid into her quite nastily. Even if she is wrong, she is entitled to a certain level of respect. It's hard to specify where to draw the line. ("I can't define incivility but I know it when I see it.") PMAnderson is obviously frustrated with the amount of time and effort that it has taken to make progress on these issues. Harmakheru, too. Karanacs too. Me too. (I just don't express it as vociferously and stridently as the others do.) Sorry, that's the Wikipedia works. It's like democracy; it sucks except for all the alternatives. You don't like the way Wikipedia works? Find some other encyclopedia to work on. Citizendium and Conservapedia beckon; you might find their rules more agreeable to you.

Let's all try to be more collegial and collaborative. Happy editing to all of you.

--Richard (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I regret being forced to change my mind; but there is a widespread dispute on the Origins and Mission section, and Anietor's revert warring cannot change that; it can conceal from the reader that there is one, but that would be disingenous.

This entire article is indeed subject to dispute, it all being written from the same ultramontane POV. My second choice is local tags, identifying what the disputes are; my first is to fix the disputable portions, preferably by restricting ourselves to what is genuinely consensus - but both of these are clearly impossible. I am done; if Anietor continues, I will take it to EW myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I thank Karanacs; the warning provided by protection should be enough for an intelligent reader - and it is manifest that there is no chance to improve this article beyond its present Ultramontane partisanship in any case. Enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page for 6 hours due to edit warring. If any admin wishes to revert this, they have my permission to do so. Karanacs (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Make it six days if you like; in any version. Since editing is impossible, tagging is reverted, and discussion is ignored, what difference can it make? But I have inquired about Anietor's claim that tagging requires consensus at WP:ANI#User:Anietor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I do appreciate and respect your eirenic approach; you have shown patience and perseverance far beyond what I could manage, and I get the feeling you've been doing this for a long time. Certainly I'm all in favor of collegiality and collaboration, as long as they can be made to work without sacrificing other important values. But both collegiality and collaboration have their limits, and they must go in both directions; otherwise, at some point they turn into appeasement, with those who are the loudest, most manipulative, or most intransigent winning the day simply by wearing everyone else down and extracting concession after concession, no matter how objectively unjustified.

I'm sorry if Nancy's feelings have been hurt. But then her feelings seem to get hurt rather easily; and genuine scholarship (which is supposed to be what Wikipedia is about) advances by dispassionate verification of facts and balanced evaluation of arguments, not by pandering to those whose feelings are most fragile. Moreover, Nancy is not exactly pure as the driven snow on this point herself. For example, you should read what she has said about me on her talk page in recent days. Among other things she has called me "viciously anti-Catholic", "persistently abusive", "one of the most unfriendly, unkind, rude editors we have had on the page for a very long time", and a "pompous and proud" university professor whose "arguments are far fetched", etc., etc., etc. (For some reason Nancy seems to despise university professors--which I'm not, by the way, and never said I was; if I were, I wouldn't be wasting time arguing with people like Nancy on Wikipedia.) She even went so far as to try to persuade Karanacs to open an investigation on me to ascertain whether I am some troll's "sock puppet". When Karanacs failed to take the bait, Nancy went ballistic and accused Karanacs of "encouraging" my alleged misbehavior, and then described Karanacs' own behavior (which Nancy had, of course, completely misrepresented) as "outrageous". When Karanacs asked her to stop talking like that, Nancy replied that she didn't "appreciate" Karanacs' "one sided" input, and then accused Karanacs of "brown nosing" instead of doing her job.

Now don't get me wrong. I frankly don't care what Nancy thinks of me, and I find her failed effort to have me declared a "sock puppet" to be downright hilarious. But I am offended by the fact that anyone would complain so bitterly about her own alleged mistreatment by others (much of it simply imagined or fabricated) even while she is engaging in the same sort of behavior herself. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. People who are themselves uncivil and uncollegial are in no position to complain about incivility or lack of collegiality from others. And people who fancy that what they are doing is "scholarship" should not act as if it's perfectly all right for them to be dishonest, uncooperative, manipulative, or deliberately obtuse, but a grievous violation of community rules for others to call them on it. In short, while I am all in favor of civility and collegiality as community values, even more important from the standpoint of scholarship is the constant application of honesty and integrity. That means no propaganda, no apologetics, no special pleading, and no "compromises" in which demonstrable errors are allowed to stand just for the sake of being nice to each other.

"And then he told them a parable." Once there was a Wikipedia editor--we'll call her Mimsy--who edited a mathematics article and inserted into it a claim that "2 + 2 = 10". Some other editor, thinking this must be a mistake, changed it to read, "2 + 2 = 4". But Mimsy (or perhaps someone else who also preferred to believe that 2 + 2 = 10, and loudly insisted that those who disagreed were all "self-appointed mathematicians" and "liberal revisionists") reverted the edit on the grounds that Mimsy "has a source" which said that "2 + 2 = 10", so she should be entitled to have her preferred text left in the article. When other editors examined Mimsy's source, they discovered that yes, indeed, it did say on the cited page that "2 + 2 = 10". But it also said at the beginning of that section, "Now we are going to take a look at how things work in base four." The other editors repeatedly explained to Mimsy that the symbol "10" in base four actually means "four", not "ten", and that if she was going to insist on putting her "2 + 2 = 10" claim into the text, she needed to explain that it did so only in the context of computations conducted in base four, not in the base-ten numeration that most math is performed in. To this very reasonable objection Mimsy responded, "I disagree. I have a source, written by a reputable mathematician and published by a reputable publisher of mathematics textbooks, which says 2 + 2 = 10, and people have a right to know that. I'm not violating any Wikipedia policies by putting that in the article, and I'm not going to take it out."

After that things got more and more difficult, with other editors deleting Mimsy's preferred text without even consulting her, and Mimsy putting it back in and complaining about how the other editors were being mean to her. She repeatedly demanded that the other editors be willing to "compromise" and show more "civility"; but it would be hard for anyone with a genuine knowledge of mathematics to agree to a "compromise" text which reads, "Some mathematicians agree that 2 + 2 = 10; others disagree." After a while, several editors with a real knowledge of mathematics became considerably less than "civil" to Mimsy when their efforts to explain and correct her errors were repeatedly rebuffed with no more cogent responses than "I disagree" and "I'm not breaking any rules." And eventually, when nothing was done to correct her behavior, people who had a life outside of Wikipedia, and didn't get some kind of masochistic enjoyment out of beating their heads against a brick wall, found something else to do with their time--which, of course, suited Mimsy just fine.

"Here endeth the lesson." Harmakheru (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. Hesperian 01:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Harmakheru, I didn't say you were wrong on the substantive issues. I also don't think all of Nancy's feelings are justified. However, some of us have gone over the line with incivility. I joined in the fray a bit myself so I'm not arguing that my hands are clean in this. I think it's due to the "heat of battle". When any of us expresses a point that seems patently obvious to us, it's extremely frustrating to have it dismissed out of hand with counterarguments that seem to defy the laws of logic and reason. It gets even worse when the point continues to be rejected over and over in the face of more arguments and supporting evidence.

I get all that. I just would like to suggest that we try to be more civil to each other. It's like the Rep. Joe Wilson incident. Decorum demands that you not call the President a liar to his face and certainly not in an official situation like a speech before Congress, even if he is shading the truth. Yeh, yeh, I know Nancy is not the President but the point is: let's try to be civil to each other even if the debate gets really frustrating as it has many times over the last few weeks.

--Richard (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Origin and mission" section (redux)

Nancy complains that the following text was not discussed before being amended:

The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Simon Peter.<:ref name="Cat861-862">Paragraph number 881 (1994). "Catechism of the Catholic Church". Libreria Editrice Vaticana. In order that the mission entrusted to them might be continued after their death, [the apostles] consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of completing and consolidating the work they had begun, urging them to tend to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of God. They accordingly designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their ministry. Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops." Hence the Church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)</ref><:ref name="Cat881">Paragraph number 881 (1994). "Catechism of the Catholic Church". Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Retrieved 8 February 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)</ref><:ref name="OneFaith46">Barry, One Faith, One Lord (a nihil obstat imprimatur source that has further approval by US bishops for use in Catechesis [6]) p. 46.</ref> The traditional narrative which is related in histories of the Catholic Church<:ref name="Orlandis11"/> marks the founding of the Church as occurring when Jesus gathers the twelve Apostles and selects Peter as their leader, saying "you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church".<:ref>Matthew 16:18.</ref> Other events in the New Testament which are used to support the notion of Jesus founding the Christian Church include the Great Commission and Pentecost. Some parts are based on archaeology and the writings of early Church Fathers such as Ignatius, Irenaeus and Dionysius of Corinth which suggest that Peter traveled to Rome, started a church there, served as the first bishop of the See of Rome and consecrated Linus as his first successor, thus starting the line of Popes of whom Benedict XVI is the 265th successor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) date

Some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus<:ref name="Orlandis11">Orlandis, p. 11 quote "But Jesus not only founded a religion - Christianity; he founded a Church. ... The Church was grounded on the Apostle Peter to whom Christ promised the primacy - 'and on this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:18)'".</ref><:ref name="Haase">Derrett, p. 480, quote: "... the activities of Jesus, and of Paul of Tarsus, cannot be understood without a knowledge of the peculiar world in which they operated. Some believe that Christianity was not founded by Jesus, called Christ, but rather by Peter with such of his associates who were apostles after Jesus's anastasis, which is usually called 'resurrection'. The faith of Peter, and the subsequent faith of Paul, are the rocks upon which the early churches were founded. Their psychosociological position at any rate must be known if one is to understand their proceedings. Others, this writer included, take Jesus as the inspiring force of the church."</ref><:ref name="Norman11">Norman, p. 11, p. 14, quote: "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime.", "The apostolate was established in Rome, the world's capital when the church was inaugurated; it was there that the universality of the Christian teaching most obviously took its central directive—it was the bishops of Rome who very early on began to receive requests for adjudication on disputed points from other bishops."</ref> Scholars such as Eamon Duffy have doubts about Peter's role in the early Roman Church citing scant historical evidence to support whether or not he was the founder, served as its bishop or spent time there prior to his martyrdom.<:ref name="SandSp7">Duffy, p. 7.</ref><:ref name=BrownMeier>Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Christianity. Paulist Press. 1983. p. 98. As for Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what he did there before he was martyred. Certainly he was not the original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense). There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church--a claim not made till the third century. Most likely he did not spend any major time at Rome before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that Peter came to the capital. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)</ref><:ref name=Cullman>{{cite book |first=Oscar |last=Cullmann |title=Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2nd ed. |publisher=Westminster Press |year=1962 |page=234 |quote="In the New Testament [Jerusalem] is the only church of which we hear that Peter stood at its head. Of other episcopates of Peter we know nothing certain. Concerning Antioch, indeed ... there is a tradition, first appearing in the course of the second century, according to which Peter was its bishop. The assertion that he was Bishop of Rome we first find at a much later time. From the second half of the second century we do possess texts that mention the apostolic foundation of Rome, and at this time, which is indeed rather late, this foundation is traced back to Peter and Paul, an assertion that cannot be supported historically. Even here, however, nothing is said as yet of an episcopal office of Peter."</ref><:ref>Chadwick, Henry (1993). The Early Church, rev. ed. Penguin Books. p. 18. No doubt Peter's presence in Rome in the sixties must indicate a concern for Gentile Christianity, but we have no information whatever about his activity or the length of his stay there. That he was in Rome for twenty-five years is third-century legend.</ref>

Duffy affirms the fact that Peter and Paul "lived, preached and died" in Rome but, because Paul's Epistle to the Romans asserts that there was already a Christian community in existence prior to their arrival, Duffy rejects the notion that they 'founded' the Church there in the strict sense of the word.<:ref name="SandSp6">Duffy, p. 6, quote: "For all these reasons, most scholars accept the early Christian tradition that Peter and Paul died in Rome. Yet, though they lived, preached and died in Rome, they did not strictly 'found' the Church there. Paul's Epistle to the Romans was written before either he or Peter ever set foot in Rome, to a Christian community already in existence."</ref> Some modern theologians have challenged the historicity of the traditional narrative, preferring a less literal interpretation of the Church's "founding" by Jesus and less specific claims about the historical foundations and transmission of the Petrine primacy in the Church's early years.<:ref>Houlden, James Leslie. link Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia, Volume 2. Partly as a result of the debate that Loisy generated, Catholic theology -- Anglican as well as Roman --has undergone a development that has moderated traditional Catholic claims that Jesus explicitly instituted the Church as a visible, structured society with officers who were first the apostles and subsequently those ordained by them in personal succession. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help); Text "page-212" ignored (help)</ref> [[:]]

Early in the history of the early Christian church, the See of Rome began to be asked to arbitrate theological disputes that arose between other bishops.<:ref name="Norman11">Norman, p. 11, p. 14, quote: "The apostolate was established in Rome, the world's capital when the church was inaugurated; it was there that the universality of the Christian teaching most obviously took its central directive—it was the bishops of Rome who very early on began to receive requests for adjudication on disputed points from other bishops."</ref> Henry Chadwick cites a letter from Pope Clement I to the church in Corinth (c. 95) as evidence of a presiding Roman cleric who exercised authority over other churches.<:ref name="McManners361"/> Other scholars disagree with these interpretations.<refJ.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes (Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 6. "Ignatius assumed that Peter and Paul wielded special authority over the Roman church, while Irenaeus claimed that they jointly founded it and inaugurated its succession of bishops. Nothing, however, is known of their constitutional roles, least of all Peter's as presumed leader of the community."/ref>

In short, the sources do not support the text; in most cases this is obvious from comparing the two; in the case of Norman and Dennett, these quotes dishonestly omit the minor detail that the words quoted are Norman's and Dennett's summaries of other positions, not held by scholars.

• Orlandis is a scholar, but all the references to him on JSTOR are to his work on Visigothic history; it is misrepresentation to suggest that he is an expert on the first century.
• Chadwick is made to speak of Pope Clement and authority. He avoids the first and does not assert the second.

All these points have already been made; we have spent a week on them. If this is restored again, I will restore the general tags; that is minimal: anything which persistently misrepresents passages it quotes should really be deleted. But I preferred to criticize by emendation, as requested above.

Silence would be acceptable and reasonable; this article need not debate the historical view of the first century at all. This is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, though I can't help noting how bizarre it is of ND Kelly (last big quote) to write as though Ignatius (born c. 35-50) and Irenaeus (born c. 115-142) were contemporary professors with access to no more information than himself. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

PMAnderson, without discussion eliminated refs and text that was added by others, cleaned up by me and is being discussed here [7] section. I do not understand what text is being disputed here, all of the text we are discussing has come from our discussions of the past week. I did not change any consensus text. All I did was rearrange the sentences in a logical order and did some rewording to one that made some OR claims. It would be helpful for you to point out to me the Wikipedia policy that says I can not use Norman, Derrett or Orlandis - all scholars - whose history books either say that the Church was founded by Jesus or in Derrett's case make the claim that he disagrees with scholars who say he was not. NancyHeise ^talk 18:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We've already discussed those references at length. They do not support the text you would associate with them; I made an effort to leave them with such text as they will support and it is that you reverted.

You may not cite Derrett or Norman to support a claim which they attribute to others and with which they disagree. You may not use Orlandis as though he were a New Testament scholar; his field is the other end of the Mediterranean and four centuries later. To do so is openly dishonesr. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Let us consider these paragraphs in detail. I would have prefered to fix them, but our revert warriors render this impossible. I regret the repetition; all of these issues have been discussed on this page before:

"The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Simon Peter. The traditional narrative which is related in histories of the Catholic Church marks the founding of the Church as occurring when Jesus gathers the twelve Apostles and selects Peter as their leader, saying "you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church". Other events in the New Testament which are used to support the notion of Jesus founding the Christian Church include the Great Commission and Pentecost. Some parts are based on archaeology and the writings of early Church Fathers such as Ignatius, Irenaeus and Dionysius of Corinth which suggest{{dubious{{ that Peter traveled to Rome, started a church there, served as the first bishop of the See of Rome and consecrated Linus as his first successor, thus starting the line of Popes of whom Benedict XVI is the 265th successor.

Some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Scholars such as Eamon Duffy have doubts about Peter's role in the early Roman Church citing scant historical evidence to support whether or not he was the founder, served as its bishop or spent time there prior to his martyrdom.

Duffy affirms the fact that Peter and Paul "lived, preached and died" in Rome but, because Paul's Epistle to the Romans asserts that there was already a Christian community in existence prior to their arrival, Duffy rejects the notion that they 'founded' the Church there in the strict sense of the word. Some modern theologians have challenged the historicity of the traditional narrative, preferring a less literal interpretation of the Church's "founding" by Jesus and less specific claims about the historical foundations and transmission of the Petrine primacy in the Church's early years.

Early in the history of the early Christian church, the See of Rome began to be asked to arbitrate theological disputes that arose between other bishops. Henry Chadwick cites a letter from Pope Clement to the church in Corinth (c. 95) as evidence of a presiding Roman cleric who exercised authority over other churches. Other scholars disagree with these interpretations.

• The CCC does not say that the Catholic Church was founded at the "consecration" of Peter; that was Richard's phrasing, and he has admitted it was careless. More to the point, it does not say that the presentation of the Keys was the origin of anything.
• The traditional narrative which is related in histories of the Church. The reader will be justified in concluding that, if he picks up any history of the Church, he will find the traditional narrative asserted. That is not true; it is not true of the NCE; the only example for this is a single "Short History" by a scholar of Visigothic Law, out of his field and writing as an amateur.
• The Gathering of the Apostles and the Conferral of the Keys are not the same event; they are at the opposite ends of Christ's ministry, and should not be conflated. Our sources do not.
• based on archaeology is a little much for one data-point (Peter's tomb) - which confirms the least disputed non-scriptural claim of the tradition (that Peter died in Rome).
• The claim about Ignatius, Irenaeus and Dionysius is misleading to the point of error.
• Some scholars agree is undue weight for a single source, by a man out of his field. Orlandis is not a NT scholar. He does not support this; neither does the passage from Derrett, who is discussing the origins of Christianity, and of individual churches, not the Catholic Church; nor does Norman, who is describing a view held by others.
• Giving a single footnote to five scholars who do not agree is an ingenious, but fraudulent, method of undue weight.
• Early in the history of the early Church is not only redundant, but wrong.
• Chadwick is cited as calling Clement a Pope, and speaking of Roman authority. He does neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

These range from major to minor errors; but they are all errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) Oct. 25, 2009

PM, there is no consensus to support your assertions. Many editors on this page disagree with your assertions and have already expressed this disagreement. NancyHeise ^talk 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can do many things; but it cannot overrule Verifiability. Verifiability is violated when sources are cited for what they do not say. Show me "Catholic Church" in the passage from Derrett; "authority" in Chadwick; and then cite them. They're conveniently in the present footnotes (the context of Norman and Derrett is quoted by Hermakheru above). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

But some do agree with some of them also. I happen to agree with most of #2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. I'll admit to not knowing enough about 1 and 3 to be able to decide either way. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Derrett

That's my position also. I support use of Derrett because he is discussing religion in the city of Rome, specifically the Christian Church in Rome - see the title of the book cited. [8] It is a stretch of the imagination for someone here to claim that he is not talking about the Church of Rome, the one that no scholar anywhere says is not the origin of what is now the Roman Catholic Church. I provide another source to support this below. See the first edit of this section [9] NancyHeise ^talk 01:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a stretch of the imagination to claim that he is talking about the Church of Rome once you've actually read the article. This is why grabbing snippets off of Google Books is not the way to do scholarship. The "book" you are citing is not a book at all, but a multi-volume monograph series of several dozen very thick volumes. The series title, as the Wikipedia article translates it, is "Rise and Fall of the Roman World"--not the rise and fall of the City of Rome. The Roman World extended from Spain in the West to the Parthian border in the East, and from Britain in the North to Upper Egypt in the South. Derrett's article (which occupies pages 477 to 564 of a much larger volume, which is itself only part of a much larger series) is entitled "Law and Society in Jesus's World". The article begins: "First-century Palestine ..." Rome doesn't even make it into the Table of Contents until page 547. In short, this is not an article about the Church of Rome, or the City of Rome; it is an article about the relationship between Jesus and Jewish Law. And in fact, if you look up Derrett on Google Scholar, you will see that he is not a church historian or a specialist in New Testament; his area is religious law, primarily in India--which means that even if he was thinking "Church of Rome" when he wrote "Christianity" (which he wasn't) he would not be offering his expert opinion as an specialist in the field, but rather his personal "take" on the matter (which is pretty much how he puts it anyway). Harmakheru (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Derrett's quote clearly shows a disagreement among scholars as to whether or not Jesus founded a church. This is what our article text is highlighting. No scholar disputes that the Church of Rome was part of this entity called "church". The only church to emerge as dominant throughout the Roman world is the Catholic Church. It is a stretch to assume that Derrett is not including the Church of Rome in his analysis when the title of the book is called "Rise and Fall of the Roman World" (I know it is a collection of essays). NancyHeise ^talk 05:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Derrett article is currently cited in support of two statements. One of them is in the lead, and is so badly drafted that it is impossible even to tell what the statement means or what claim the references are supposed to be supporting. The second is in the "Origins" section. It says: "Some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus." Now this is clearly not what Derrett says. He says that Jesus was the "inspiring force of the church", with a lower-case "c". He implies that by being the inspiring force of this church he in some sense "founded" "Christianity", which presumably is more or less the same thing as "the church". But to leap from this to a claim that Derrett believes the "Catholic Church was founded by Jesus" is simply preposterous. It is not correct to say that "no scholar disputes that the Church of Rome was part of this entity called 'church'." There have in fact been many scholars down through history, and there are many today, who flatly deny anything of the sort. And even if no scholars did deny the fact, what you are doing here is trying to run a syllogism which turns out to be at least misleading and probably fallacious: "Jesus founded a church. The Catholic Church was part of that church. Therefore Jesus founded the Catholic Church." You can only get away with that by assuming things not in evidence (i.e., that the Catholic Church was a part of that early church--which is certainly not universally agreed upon and is probably impossible to prove in any case); and even if you could get over that hump, you still have the problem that the same argument could equally well be made on behalf of the Orthodox, the Copts, the Chaldeans, and all sorts of other ancient churches, all of whom are excluded from view by mentioning the Catholic Church in isolation, thereby giving the Catholic Church a propaganda advantage to which it is not entitled. As for the claim that Derrett must have had the Church of Rome in view in his article because the book has the word "Roman" in its title, that is so absurd that it's not even worth refuting. If you had actually read the article instead of grabbing snippets of it off Google Books, you might realize just how absurd it is. Harmakheru (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please Harmakheru, tone down your writing style. I understand that you are frustrated, but this level of writing is painful to read; the conflict is too strong. I have tried to stay out of the conversation, but things are getting out of hand.

Nancy, I agree with the point that Harmakheru is making if you are attempting to use it as a reference to support that Jesus founded the Catholic church. The only thing Derrett is saying is the Christ was the fundamental impetus behind the church, (not Church), as in Christianity. More importantly, given that there is so much confusion over what Derrett is saying that the reference is not helpful. Either secondary references must be clear about the point they are making are they are not usable. We need references that are crystal clear and are beyond any need for interpretation. Nancy, please do not use this reference.

I would again ask everyone to clarify the difference between sacred history and history. Sacred history is what is taught by the Church and it is what is believed. History is the branch of knowledge that is based upon reported facts from past to present. Historians may believe what they choose, but their stated beliefs are not a statement of historical fact and must never be used as such. Historical fact is supported by recorded event(s). The only reason to cite what a historian believes is an attempt to present a historical fact for the truthfulness of the Catholic Church. This is diametrically opposed to the purpose of Wikipedia. We report the facts as reported by reliable references, but "truth" is irrelevant to us; it is beyond the scope of our purpose because we are incapable of defining truth for the world. IF editors would like to state the beliefs of historians, then quote the historian(s). We should never attempt to aggrandize our position by using the belief in sacred history as history. I am certain that the motives for doing so are good, but I reject it as bordering on deceit.

I am not aware of a single historian who has ever built a case based solely upon recorded history for the Catholic Church being the church founded by Jesus Christ. Every attempt at doing so requires some degree of leap from recorded history to faith by readers and other historians. Why? Because the detailed history of this period does not exist. Too much has been lost and all that we have is supposition and faith. Allow the sacredness of faith to exist and do not demean it by calling it historical fact. Do not confuse the sacred with the secular. -^StormRider 08:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Stormy one, there does not seem to be any possibility of establishing any kind of respectable historical proof that Christ founded the church in any way that would satisfy scholarly criteria. As an aside, when I was studying theology my elderly and by no means liberal Jesuit professor of church history was quite insistent that Christ didn't found the church - at least not in the way that this is generally understood. Personally I am not convinced either way and don't lose sleep over it. Afterwriting (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh... those troublesome Jesuits... always mucking things up by insisting on logic and reason. I say away with the lot of them; suppress them again and this time make it stick! -)

Seriously, I endorse what StormRider has written above. This whole dispute arises from trying to make what StormRider calls "sacred history" and I call "traditional narrative" into a question of historical fact. If we could back away from trying to do that, we would be better able to resolve this dispute.

I also endorse what StormRider said about Harmakheru's discussion style and extend it to PMAnderson as well. I have to fight the temptation to join in because, down deep, I share their frustration. However, such antagonistic, belittling comments only serve to stoke the conflict not resolve it.

--Richard (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignatius, Irenaeus and Dionysius

I support most of PMAnderson's points except for the one about Ignatius, Irenaeus and Dionysius. I wrote that based on the "Connection to Rome" section in our article on Simon Peter. I found material on what Ignatius, Irenaeus and Dionysius wrote about Peter and attempted to summarize it for this article. Did I get something wrong? PMAnderson, can you explain what your issue is with using the writings of these Church Fathers to support the "traditional narrative" of the Catholic Church being the successor of the early Church of Rome? --Richard (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Dionysius (and you may as well throw Clement in there at the beginning as well) are indiscriminately lumped together, without any sense of development, as witnesses to the entirety of the traditional narrative. In fact, we get the first glimmerings of the tradition in the New Testament itself (with 1 Peter being written from "Babylon" and hints at the end of John about Peter's future martyrdom), then Clement (in which Peter is looked upon as a martyred hero of the faith who was in some unspecified way connected with Rome and probably martyred there), then Ignatius (who says that Peter "commanded" the Romans, although when and how is not specified), then Irenaeus (who explicitly says that Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome and established the succession there). There is a clear line of development in all this, in which the traditional narrative is gradually formed and shaped and (by the middle of the second century) put to the specific use of bolstering the authority of the Catholic Church in general and of the See of Rome in particular. That's important to note somewhere, but if it's going to be stated in summary in this particular article it needs to be crafted very carefully so as not to leave the reader with the wrong impression. Harmakheru (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh...assuming that you have correctly surmised PMAnderson's objection, I understand it now that you have made the issue more explicit. I do agree that it's not as if each of the authors mentioned documented the entire "traditional narrative" but rather it appears as if the traditional narrative was formed by picking a bit from one author and another bit from a different author and then synthesizing the various bits into an integrated narrative. (Doesn't mean that the result is wrong but I agree it's important that the reader know the difference between the two models) It would be difficult to put all of what you wrote into the article although it might be appropriate to summarize it and then put the detailed explication in a Note. The problem at the moment is that, coming from you, it is OR. Is there a reliable source who puts forth these ideas? --Richard (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your summary is pretty much what I understand the situation to be; this sort of re-creation was widespread in antiquity (for example, the traditional history of Rome itself before the Punic Wars appears to be very much the same sort of thing, except that we have 1 Peter and Clement and we don't have most of the comparable data on Rome that Livy used.). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source who puts forth this theory? It would really help deflect charges of OR. --Richard (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Horizon History of Christianity

I bought this book because it was listed in the Encyclopedia Brittanica bibliography for their Roman Catholic Church article and I just wanted to see what it was all about since it is out of print. I am not proposing this as a source for us to use, I just want to show this author's POV. The book is written by Roland Bainton, more details are on Googlebooks here [10].

• p. 66 "Although as self-governing units local churches were congregational, still a conference of leaders meeting at Jerusalem issued decrees regarding the freedom of Christians from the Jewish Law. This procedure suggests a prebyterian polity in which a collegiate body has a measure of jurisdiction over several local congregations. Paul's supervision of all the churches of his foundation, in turn, corresponded functionally with the role of a modern bishop and thus suggests an episcopal polity. Thus, elements of the three main systems of government as they are practiced today in Christian churches may be traced back to the apostolic age."
• I think this clearly contradicts what Duffy was saying about the office of bishop not existing from the very beginning. NancyHeise ^talk 03:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It says that there was an "episcopal polity" in (some parts of) the early Church-–but that this "episcopal" function in those days was exercised by apostles, not by appointed local bishops. This is confirmed by Bainton's later book Christianity (Mariner Books, 2000), in which he writes, "As to the bishop, by the beginning of the second century his position had become more clearly defined, and the system of a single bishop in charge of a single congregation prevailed in Syria and Asia Minor. ... The early organization of the Church in Rome--which was to become the very seat of authority--is obscure. Although Clement of Rome is called in subsequent tradition the third bishop of Rome, in his letter to the Corinthians ... he makes no reference whatever to his own authority, nor does he clearly indicate that Rome had a single bishop." (p. 73) "That Peter was in Rome and suffered in Rome is as strongly attested as in the case of Paul. That he was the first bishop is rather a matter of faith than of historical demonstration. ... By A.D. 185, as indicated by Irenaeus, the Church of Rome had attained preeminence as the custodian of the apostolic tradition." (p. 74)

So far from being a representative of the position you want to defend, Bainton is in fact clearly on the "other side": No historical evidence that Peter was the first bishop in Rome; no evidence of monarchical episcopacy anywhere, especially at Rome, until the second century; no clear "authority" for Rome over other churches until the second century at the earliest, probably around AD 185 or 190. Harmakheru (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Henry Chadwick disagrees with you. See his quotes in the new section below. NancyHeise ^talk 05:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Chadwick disagrees with Harmakheru's demonstration that Bainton does not think what NancyHeise claims he thinks? How so? Hesperian 05:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the ecclesiastical historians already

You can't prove that a doctrinal framework stands up to historical scrutiny, by asking the opinion of those historians who have chosen prima facie to accept and work within that doctrinal framework. It begs the question. Hesperian 04:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So anyone who is a catholic or a christian is disbarred as a historian? Presumably since atheist and non-catholic historians would have chosen prima facie to work within their doctrinal frameworks, we have to disbar them too - and end up with no historians! Of course Hesperian's point is nonsense. Evolutionists cannot comment on Evolution. Chemists cannot give evidence on Chemistry. American historians cannot write about the history of the USA - that should be left to Iranian and Chinese historians! Xandar 13:50,

27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Xandar it is you who is talking nonsense here. A Catholic is not 'disbarred as a historian' but they are not capable of looking objectively at the history of their Church either. That is not a criticism but does mean however that we shouldn't be relying on them so heavily for references. A run through your examples will demonstrate why none of them represent a valid analogy: if an evolutionist discovers evidence of human life a billion years earlier than previously thought, a chemist discovers a new element or an American historian discovers an earlier version of the Declaration of Independence, they might have to radically change their views but it doesn't invalidate their whole worldview. If Duffy or Vidmar found evidence that suggested for e.g. that Jesus never existed as a human being on Earth their first impulse would not be to apply historical methods of analysis to see if it were true but to see if they could invalidate it by selective quotation, deliberate misreading etc because of the implication for their religious beliefs. That 'make the facts fit the the story' approach might appeal to you and Nancy but is the opposite of real history.Haldraper (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What silliness, Haldraper. To say that a Catholic historian is "not capable of looking objectively" at the church's history has no foundation (which would explain why you rest this statement on nothing but your own view). Your line of reasoning would disqualify any historian who is non-Catholic because anything they "discover" (to use your term) that suggested certain Catholic beliefs or claims are correct would also "radically change their views" about their own faith (or lack of faith). Wholesale disqualification of Catholic historians? That would make for an interesting article, but not a very thorough one, or a NPOV one. --anietor (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing for "Wholesale disqualification of Catholic historians" but that this page relies far too heavily on them to be NPOV. They should be balanced by the views of secular historians of which there are many. I note you avoid the central point: do you claim that Catholic academics like Vidmar approach Church history with an open mind, uninfluenced by their religious beliefs? It is Xandar's attempt to bracket them with chemists, evolutionists and American historians that is 'silliness'. Secular historians would have no problem accepting the Church's account of its origins if the historical evidence for it were there as it would not '"radically change their views" about their own faith (or lack of faith)' as you seem to think, transferring as you do your own religious attitudes onto them ('The Church was right about the first Pope, it must be right about everything else').Haldraper (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Some Catholics can't write history without their prejudices shining through; some Protestants can't either. Neither is writing good history; good history is where you can't tell which is writing it. To quote a summary of J. H. Hexter's Doing History: "A historian examining the British history section of the library passes by Francis Aidan Cardinal Gasquet's sympathetic study Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (1888) and Geoffrey Baskerville's sneering English Monks and the Suppression of the Monasteries (1937) to select the four massive and authoritative volumes of the late Professor D. D. Knowles, The Monastic Order in England and The Religious Orders in England, indifferent to the fact that Knowles was a Catholic priest and a Benedictine monk." It doesn't matter, because it didn't matter to his work; and that matters very much indeed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not that Catholic scholars are incapable of looking at things objectively, but rather that they may not be allowed to. For centuries Catholic scholars, historians and otherwise, have been subjected to an official system of content control which prevents them from pursuing truth for its own sake and following it wherever it leads. In addition to the Index of Prohibited Books, there was the Holy Office in Rome, which was not shy about bringing the hammer down on any Catholic theologian or historian who strayed outside the permitted boundaries. Alfred Loisy, who stands at the headwaters of the modern critical approach to scripture and religious history, was excommunicated for speaking truths which are today considered commonplace even within mainstream Catholic scholarship. Vast numbers of Catholic scholars were hounded out of their jobs and even out of the Church during the hysteria over "modernism"; those who stood up for scholarly objectivity were severely punished, and those who tried to remain silent were nevertheless ferreted out by informers and loyalty oaths. Many of the scholarly experts who advised the Second Vatican Council were threatened, silenced, and otherwise punished by the highest authorities of the Church in the years leading up to that Council, and others were singled out and punished afterwards. Even today, despite the post-conciliar thaw, Catholic scholars who do not follow the party line risk censure, silencing, the loss of their jobs, and even excommunication simply for telling the truth as they see it.

Canon Law is quite clear on this point, requiring that all instruction regarding Catholicism, whether in schools or "through the various media of social communications", be in strict accord with "correct doctrine", and giving diocesan bishops absolute power to dismiss instructors in seminaries (Canon 253), colleges and universities (Canon 810), and parochial schools (Canon 803) for deviating from it; in fact, Canons 804 and 805 purport to give bishops the power to remove, or demand the removal, of those who teach about Catholicism "in any schools whatsoever .. even non-Catholic ones". Furthermore, at least theoretically every member of the Catholic faithful is subjected to the same constraints; bishops have "the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment" before they go to press (Canon 823), and this pertains not only to books but to "any writings whatsoever which are destined for public distribution" (Canon 824), including the internet. And in particular, "books which treat questions of sacred scripture, theology, canon law, church history or which deal with religious or moral disciplines cannot be employed as textbooks ... unless they were published with the approval of the competent ecclesiastical authority" (Canon 827).

The practical effect of this is that any textbook, treatise, essay, journal article, scholarly musing, or apologetic tract which in any way touches upon any matter over which the Catholic Church claims jurisdiction is not supposed to see the light of day unless it has been given prior approval by ecclesiastical authority as being in perfect conformity with Catholic doctrine on the subject; and any Catholic who refuses to knuckle under to this requirement is putting himself at considerable risk, especially if his livelihood depends on it. How far the danger extends can be seen by comparing the USCCB's mandatum guidelines [11] with Cardinal Ratzinger's "Doctrinal Commentary on the Profession of Faith" [12]. The former states that:

• All Catholics who teach Catholic theological disciplines in a Catholic college or university are required to have a mandatum.

• "Catholic theological disciplines" include Scripture, theology, canon law, liturgy, and church history.

• Recipients of the mandatum are obligated to "teach in full communion with the Church" and to "teach authentic Catholic doctrine".

What does it mean to "teach in full communion" with the Catholic Church? The "Doctrinal Commentary" explains that the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church extends not only to dogmatic issues like the pronouncements of Ecumenical Councils and papal teachings ex cathedra, but also to historical determinations such as "the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff", "the celebration of an ecumenical council", and "the canonizations of saints"; hence these are matters on which no dissent is allowed, and those who fail to accept the Church's pronouncements on such matters (and not just with the "obedience of silence", but with "full and irrevocable" interior assent) are by that very fact "no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church". And what does it mean to teach "authentic Catholic doctrine"? Not just bowing to the allegedly infallible teachings of Catholic dogma, but to everything--the entire content of the Catechism, every papal encyclical, everything taught by the ordinary magisterium scattered throughout the world over the past 1900 years, etc., etc, etc., at least insofar as that teaching hasn't been tossed overboard by higher authority in the meantime. That's a heck of a lot of teaching--but the Catholic teacher (or textbook writer) is theoretically obligated to teach in accordance with every last bit of it--or else.

So what becomes of a Catholic historian who, for example, finds himself convinced, as a professional historian acting in good conscience, that some alleged saint wasn't any such thing, and perhaps never even existed? He is "no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church", and therefore as thoroughly barred from the sacraments as any Protestant. And if he dares to contradict the party line in public, on this or any other matter, he risks losing his job, being commanded never again to teach in his field of professional expertise, and possibly being expelled from the Church entirely. That's a pretty good reason for such people to very, very careful what they say--and a good reason for others to be cautious in uncritically accepting it. Harmakheru (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best explanation I've ever seen of this, although excommunication or even simple censure has been extremely rare the past few decades on such matters. I'd also note it's been less a problem amongst historians than it has been for scientists.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on both points--but lately the screws have been tightening again. This is especially apparent in Cardinal Ratzinger's "Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian" [13], which says that the proper function of the theologian (and, by extension, all other forms of Catholic scholarship) is merely to explain and defend the teachings of the Magisterium--and that if the theologian finds, after strenuous exertion, that he simply can't do that, he is expected to shut up and suffer in silence, confident that "if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail." Harmakheru (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Professor Thomas Noble

University of Notre Dame Professor Thomas Noble [14] is the author/editor of a university textbook entitled Western Civilization. This book is co-authored by several professors of history from a range of Universities. These are Cornell's Barry Strauss [15], University of Virginia's Duane Osheim [16], Duke University's Kristen Neuschel [17], Indiana University's William Cohen [18], University of Georgia's David Roberts [19] and Arizona State University's Rachel Fuchs [20]. Here are some quotes that support the Catholic version of its history and that differ from those of the scholars that Harmakheru has offered.

• page 196 "According to a reliable tradition, he (Peter) went to Rome, whose church he headed and where he died as a martyr in AD 64."
• page 212 "The Christianization of the empire's population ... and the emergence of the Catholic Church as a hierarchical, institutional structure were two of the greatest transformations of the ancient world. ... Attempts to resolve those controversies entangled the church with the Roman authorities and strengthened the Bishops of Rome."
• page 212 "The earliest Christian communities were urban and had three kinds of officials, whose customary titles in English are bishop, priest, and deacon."
• page 213 "From its earliest days, the Christian community had espoused the doctrine of apostolic succession. In other words, just as Jesus had charged his apostles with continuing his earthly ministry, that ministry was passed on to succeeding generations of Christian bishops and priests through the ceremony of ordination. When one or more bishops laid their hands on the head of a new priest or bishop, they were continuing an unbroken line of clerics that reached back through the apostles to Jesus himself. ... The theory of "Petrine Primacy" was based on Matthew's Gospel (16:16-18), where Jesus founded his church on Peter, "the Rock," and conferred upon him the keys to the kingdom of heaven."
• page 214 "Ever since Nicea, councils with active participation by the emperors, had settled major disagreements in the church. Pope Leo I began to assert papal prerogatives. ..." NancyHeise ^talk 01:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just one tidbit here, but the Council of Nicea is in 325 and Pope Leo I was pope from 440-461, which isn't exactly early. I don't see p. 212 conflicting with anything above. Nor is there anything in there that gives a time scale on when they are discussing these changes. Understand that "reliable tradition" in historian-speak means exactly that, a 'tradition' not a 'fact'. As for the rest, I'd like see the surrounding context of these quotes, it's very easy to quote a sentence or two, but it's the whole weight of the argument that's important. Also, note that if this is the textbook I'm thinking it is, it's going to cover the whole time frame of history from pre-history to the Reformation, and thus it's going to be less exact that a monograph or peer-reviewed work on a more specialized subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is less exact, it is covering a whole time frame. I am just offering some more selections that were previously requested on this page. The part about "tradition" I mean to place here is that these authors say it is "reliable". This fact is also brought out in another history book I read, I am searching for it and I'll post when I find that passage. I placed the part about Nicea in there because it shows that these authors are discussing the church that is headed by the Pope - the one this article is discussing. That passage on 214 comes exactly two paragraphs after these authors are relaying how the church was founded - the quote I posted from p. 213. P. 212 shows that these authors agree that the earliest Christian communities had offices of priest bishop and deacon, a point Duffy disputes as well as some of the other sources offered by Harmakheru. I am just pointing out that there are "some scholars" who disagree with their sources and who can also be used in this article to point out the diversion of scholarly opinions about the origins of the church. NancyHeise ^talk 02:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For the time being, I'm going to stay out this part of the debate. However, I would like to say that my take on the phrase "reliable tradition" is that "tradition" is something that we believe in even though it is not in Scripture. Thus, much of this tradition comes from the writings of the Church Fathers and some of it is legend. "Reliable tradition", as I understand the phrase, means "Don't worry, this isn't some spurious legend. We can rely on this (as a matter of Catholic faith) because it was attested to by a reliable Church Father". Whether a historian takes this "reliable tradition" to be a historical fact depends in part on how much credence that historian gives to the Church Father in general and to that writing in particular. As we have seen, some people "diss" Irenaeus' assertions about Peter and some people believe it. --Richard (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, the only point we are trying to establish here is that there is scholarly disagreement - some for an some against the version of history garnered by the Church. Some on this page have tried to instill a sense that "most historians" disagree with the Church's version and provided refs. I have already provided some refs to support the other POV and I am just trying to add some more per those editors requests. NancyHeise ^talk 03:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Scholarly disagreement"??! What historian would bother to disagree? The premise is meaningless.

Locating the moment of origin of a church is like pinpointing the exact location at which a river begin. You could walk upstream, watch it split into branches and tributaries, and follow them up, further and further, narrower and narrower, until eventually you're tracing trickles in the dirt. Map the catchment at one centimetre resolution and you still won't be able to pinpoint an exact location where the river may be said to have started, because the question is meaningless. Nonetheless that is precisely what geographical nomenclators do: they define and name specific stretches and branches of rivers: River X begins here and ends here. This is entirely unobjectionable, so long as one remembers that the naming decision is utterly arbitrary, and doesn't make a bit of difference to the river itself. In the same way, the Catholic Church is free to declare that they began with Peter, if they want to; so long as this, too, is understood to be arbitrary, and therefore meaningless outside its doctrinal context. What I don't accept is the elevation of this point of doctrine to something more than a traditional doctrinal narrative. The historical fact is that Catholicism traces back to Peter, through Peter, through Jesus, through Judaism, and is ultimately lost in the dirt of the documentary hypothesis. There are some critical moments in that narrative, but is no one moment where it can be identified as having begun, except by virtue of an arbitrary decision of doctrine.

This is why you won't find historians disputing the doctrinal claim of origin on historical grounds; nor will you find them endorsing it on historical grounds. From a historical point of view the claim is arbitrary and meaninglessm. It is simply not amenable to historical analysis.

Hesperian 03:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have to listen to what our sources are saying and it looks like they don't agree with your analysis otherwise they would not be saying these things. My only reason for spelling this out is to show the disagreement among scholars that our article text is explaining. You and Harmakheru offered your sources to support the scholars who are on one side of the debate, I am offering a list of scholars on the other side to supplement the three I already have in the article. NancyHeise ^talk 03:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Survey textbooks which swallow a couple of thousand years of "Western Civilization" in a single gulp are notoriously unreliable except for the areas in which the authors themselves actually work as experts; much of the rest is often cobbled together from material out of other textbooks, which got it out of other textbooks, which got it out of other textbooks, etc. (I know someone who worked for a major textbook publisher, and he saw this all the time.) This is how the "Columbus and the flat earth" narrative originated--it started as a scene in a novel, got picked up by other authors as true, then found its way into high school and college textbooks as "something everyone knows", copied and paraphrased from generation to generation without anyone bothering to go back to the primary historical sources--which, when somebody finally looked, turned out not to exist.

So what are the specialties of the authors given here? Strauss is a military historian. Osheim does medieval and renaissance. Neuschel does late medieval and early modern. Cohen did French and modern European. Roberts is in modern European history. Fuchs does French history and women's issues. None of these are relevant to the topic at hand. That leaves the primary author/editor, T.F.X. Noble, whose area is "Charlemagne, medieval Rome, and papal history". It is conceivable that "papal history" might have taken him into the foundational claims for the papacy, but I can't find any evidence of it; he seems to be more interested in "late antiquity" and afterwards than he is in the early stuff. So before you could use this as a credible source in support of your position, someone would have to come up with some evidence that Noble has actually done some kind of scholarly work in the right era, or at least relied on specialists in the right era when he compiled that section of his book (assuming that he even did so--without examining the textbook itself, it would be hard to say--and even that might not help). Harmakheru (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

All of the book's authors are scholars [21] who hold views contrary to those of other scholars on this subject. Our only goal here is to reveal this disparity to Reader. There is no Wikipedia policy that would bar us from using a university textbook written by multiple university professors of history that covers the subject of the Catholic Church. Please read WP:RS and WP:reliable source examples. NancyHeise ^talk 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't know what all the book's authors hold on this particular subject unless you know that all of them specifically vetted this section of the book, which is highly unlikely; most scholars are very busy people and don't proofread the entirety of each other's textbooks even when they happen to be contributing something to it. The only person whose views you have here is the person or persons who actually worked directly on this text, which might be Dr. Noble; but it might also have been one of his grad students, or an outside contract worker, or someone who worked for the company that published it--the possibilities are endless. And please don't start in again with your rule-mongering. There are a lot of things that are not explicitly forbidden in Wikipedia policy which are nevertheless a bad idea for all sorts of reasons. As I've said before, there's no Wikipedia policy that bars me from adding a "Whore of Babylon" section to this article; I can almost certainly come up with a ton of references, and I could claim just as easily as you that my only goal in doing so is to "reveal the disparity" between the Church's claims for itself and what outsiders have said about it over the centuries. Do you think I should do that, in the interests of NPOV and all that? Doesn't the reader have a right to know? Harmakheru (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that you could find a univerity history textbook written by a plethora of professors of history that says the Catholic Church is the "whore of babylon". I can't even find mention of the fact that anti-Catholics say this which I would expect if it were a notable belief by experts of Catholic Church history. That aside, we can not be expected to toss this third party reliable source written by many professors of history that is commonly used as a university textbook and that covers the history of the Catholic Church. We like variety and like to see what a range of scholars on the subject say about our article topics. NancyHeise ^talk 06:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't need a "university history book". According to your rules, I just need a "source", and that's not hard to find. It would even add a bit of spice to that "variety" you say you like. The more the merrier, and all that. Harmakheru (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

These tendentious and dishonest arguments comparing recent polemic theories about the "whore of Babylon" with the actual and verifiable history of the Church, severely weaken your credibility as a balanced contributor. Your personalisation of the debate and constant insults of those who disagree with you also add to the feeling that you and PMA are making the discussion here unhelpful and unproductive. We have tried to indulge in rational discussion on individual points, but all we are getting in response is polemic. Xandar 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Xandar, equating the Catholic Church with the Whore of Babylon, and/or the Pope with the Antichrist, has a good Catholic pedigree, and it's hardly "recent"; among its proponents were Bishop Arnulf of Orleans (ca. 991), Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (d. 1190), Abbot Joachim of Fiore (d. 1202), Archbishop Eberhard II of Regensberg (d. 1246), the Spiritual Franciscans (13th-14th c.), Dante (d. 1321), Savonarola (d. 1498), etc. The rest of your accusations are themselves unfounded "polemic", and not worth responding to. Harmakheru (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And actually, Xandar, no-one is comparing "whore of Babylon" with "actual and verifiable history of the Church". The reason Harmakheru drew this comparison was to make the point that both claims may be sourced, but neither to sources that withstand scrutiny. It is a big problem that some people cannot see the validity of the comparison. It is a big problem that some people will skite the "whore of Babylon" example whilst remaining blind to the equally awful examples being thrown up by their allies. And it is a big problem that some people can indefinitely ignore challenges to their putative sources, even when those challenges are given in the form of simple, direct, relevant questions like this and this and this.

So let me try again. Here is a simple, direct question, which, if you can be bothered to answer it, might serve to put this "whore of Babylon" thread to bed. Which, if either, is an appropriate source for the material under discussion here: the 1866 anti-Catholic polemic The mystery of iniquity unveiled (wherein the Catholic Church is declare to be the Whore of Babylon); or the 1840 Catholic apologia The pillar and foundation of truth (which seeks to prove, using logic, that the Pope is infallible; and which NancyHeise apparently still considers an appropriate source)? Hesperian 04:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I can't wait to see this crew tackle Islam and Mormon.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We'll need some body armor and trauma kits. And don't forget the movie camera so we can put it all up on YouTube. Harmakheru (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it would not be the Mormon article that would be difficult, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The criticism articles would also be...enjoyable to tackle Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Criticism of Joseph Smith Jr.. However, having worked on many of these articles, I think those might be a walk in the park. Working on this article will prepare an editor for all other problems. Then again, I do find the expertise of the editors to be of a higher than the others. -^StormRider 06:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Trad Anglicans returning home?

There seems to be a lot of coverage on this in the media, but I'm not sure how to word it in the article.[22] Essentially this is the major output on The Anglican Question and the ecumenistic effort to reunite the two. Now that liberals in the Anglican Church are pushing LGBT and feminist "bishops" and priestess', as well as gay marriage and abortion, it seems like this will be the definintive "final say" from the Vatican on the issue, so its probably not recentism to include it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It may merit a sentence, saying that the terms of such a movement have been set. I'm not sure how much it relates to ecumenism or the Catholic position on Anglican ordersd and sacraments (in some ways it seems to be a nod toward their validity) However no major movement has actually happened yet, so we don't know how significant this is. Xandar 00:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I already put a couple sentences plus refs in the Present section - please have a look. NancyHeise ^talk 04:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, there's no "nod toward their validity". Anglican clergy joining this group would still have to be reordained if they wish to serve as Catholic priests. Peter jackson (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I cut the new section on this that smacks of recentism. I agree with Xandar's point: no movement has taken place yet. For it to be notable enough for mention here, I think we'd need to see a sizeable split and in more than one country.Haldraper (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like thee could be an exodus, the Bishop of Chichester and Bishop of Fulham (with the Bishop of Beverley also making positive comments) are both said to be amongst those coming home. Hopefully the beautiful churches that a certain Welshman took away many moons ago comes back with them. The Telegraph says its "one of the most significant developments since the Reformation".[23] - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, please spare us from your personal prejudices and polemics on this talk page in future. This is not a blog for you to vent your irrelevant opinions on current church issues. Afterwriting (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've cut this again. Speculation about something that might happen at a unspecified date in the future doesn't belong in the 'Present' section and only serves to unnecessarily lengthen an already long article.Haldraper (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we bring this to some closure?

OK... we made some progress over the last few days by establishing that there is a substantial body of historians and theologians who oppose the "traditional narrative". What is not clear is whether these represent the mainstream or not. Let's leave that go for the time being.

Now, the problem is that we are trying to determine two things:

(1) Is the "traditional narrative" part of the Church's teaching? Well, it's not crystal clear from the Catechism whether it is or it isn't. The Catechism seems to point in that direction but as Harmakheru has pointed out, it could be interpreted to be carefully avoiding making historical assertions where theological ones will do. (i.e. establishing the historicity of the apostolic succession does not seem as important as asserting it as a Church doctrine). However, Harmakheru's interpretation of what the Catechism is doing is OR until we can find someone who specifically says that this is what the Catechism is doing (a quote from the likes of Bokenkotter, Kreeft or Schreck). Not that I think this is likely but I'm just saying we can't put in Harmakheru's interpretation without sourcing it.

(2) Even if the "traditional narrative" is part of the Church's teaching, are there people who assert that it has a basis in historical fact? It seems that John Vidmar is one such person. Perhaps Henry Chadwick is also one although there is some doubt about it. I would say that it is not our job to argue about which side of the line Henry Chadwick is on. If we're not sure, we should just agree not to invoke him on this topic since this article is not about him and his writings and so it's not worth our effort to go on arguing about how to interpret the writings of Henry Chadwick with respect to the "traditional narrative".

So... my recommendation is

(1) write the text to follow the Catechism very closely; say only what the Catechism says and no more (I trust that PMAnderson will keep us on the straight and narrow in this regard)

(2) Cite John Vidmar as one of the scholars who supports the "traditional narrative"; I think a characterization along the lines of "many scholars" can be supported here because Vidmar is unlikely to be the only one with this viewpoint (if he was a lesser light, he might be a maverick but being a "major name" he is not likely to be a lone voice in the wilderness on a topic such as this). However, I don't like the specific phrase "many scholars" because "scholars" is such a loosely-defined term. Are we talking "Catholic scholars"? As Hesperian points out, why are we surprised if Catholic scholars of Church history espouse the "traditional narrative"? Despite Harmakheru's arguments that the Church is quietly abandoning the traditional narrative, I have to say that I'll believe it when I see it in print. Until then, the theory is based on conjecture and supposition. (I'm not saying it isn't true; I'm just saying you can't say it in Wikipedia) I don't agree with Nancy that "scholars are scholars". Xandar doesn't take that approach when shooting down "anti-Catholic" or "liberal theologians". In those situations, it suddenly seems to matter what kind of scholar a source is. It seems disingenuous to argue that it doesn't matter when the scholar supports your position.

--Richard (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't "shoot down" scholars as liberal or revisionists. What I do is argue that such scholars only represent one particular ideological viewpoint - rather than the totality or consensus of opinion as Harmakheru and some others would have it. And the viewpoint they do represent is based largely on lack of evidence and personal conjecture rather than fact. The fact that a historian may be Catholic does not exclude them from being a legitimate historian, any more than we can exclude or devalue histories of America written by Americans. The attitude that Catholic historians are uniquely falsifying and untrustworthy is one more borne of prejudice than scholarship. And this is not just Catholic historians anyway. Chadwick is just one example of a non (Roman) Catholic scholar who clearly (dispite certain peoples quibbles and obfuscations) supports the basic historicity of the mainstream narrative of the origin of the Church. The Oxford Dictionary of Christianity takes the same view. (Curiously enough, for all the quibbling, no logical cogent and evidenced alternative origin has been put forward.) As I have said previously, this is an encyclopedia and it does have to deal in history as well as theology. I have never quarrelled with putting a theological view and then the historical view. So I see Richards post as pointing the way towards productive resolution. Xandar 14:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Richard and Xandar. I'm sorry I can't devote a lot of time to this discussion today. I am busy. I am planning on doing some more research at a different library later in the week that has a better selection of authors covering the Catholic Church. I will try to participate as I find time. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 18:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have always rejected arguments that attempt to define the quality of an academic or scholar based upon her/his religious affiliation. There are only scholars; no qualifier is needed. However, having said that we need to take great care in identifying when a scholar is speaking as a scholar and when he is speaking as a believer or an adherent of a specific religion. To me, I look at the context of the statement; does it follow a stated hypothesis and followed by their "proofs", then summed by their conclusion. If so, then I determine that the scholar is speaking as such. However, if it is, "I believe" or "I think" without any evidence, then it must be assumed the individual is sharing their religious convictions.

Having said that, I would agree with Richard that scholar is a rather ambiguous term. Historian can even be ambiguous unless we evaluate the expertise of the historian being quoted. I still strongly recommend keeping this firmly in the area of faith. When we have historical evidence for a given fact, then quote that fact only i.e. Clement stated x,y,z, etc.-^StormRider 22:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here shares a common error: There is no the historical view; there are at least four. (There is a unique theological view, because we are agreed that this article should present the theology of a single document.) We have seen, sourced on this page to historians:

1. Peter was never in Rome
2. Peter was in Rome, was martyred there; we know nothing else for certain (Castelot)
3. Peter was in Rome, but Rome had no single bishop until a century after his death (Duffy, and many others; I have never read Duffy and this is familiar to me; I think from Peter Brown).
4. Peter was in Rome, and the balance of the evidence is that he was called Bishop and was the only one so called (Vidmar).

The Catechism, as quoted, is compatible with all of these, even the first; all of the last three are "Catholic views" (as the authors cited should show). There is no "the Catholic view".Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

However in this article we are not really that concerned about whether Peter was officially called "Bishop of Rome", whether Rome had a single bishop, or Peter was the only one known as Bishop of Rome. I have a view on these things, but that is not necessary for the article. The point that is necessary for the article is: That the Catholic Church of today is historically a direct continuation of the 1st century Church that Peter led or guided in Rome. That's a simple enough point, which is either yes or no. The single Catholic view is Yes. However some historians also say yes, while some others disagree. Xandar 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether, and the extent to which, "some historians also say yes", is the whole point of this discussion, so blithely reiterating that assertion isn't going to get us anywhere. So far I've seen little in the way of support for that claim, despite the attempt above to fend off the fundamental sourcing requirement by drowning us all in countless long-winded irrelevant quotes from grossly misrepresented source after source after source. Hesperian 00:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the reason the assertions above matter is that one central question is whether there ever was a 1st century Church that Peter led or guided in Rome. That is exactly what Father Castelot said could not be stated with certainty.

This is why I support discussing that matter in another article. Since we were successful in keeping Saint Peter from being renamed, it seems logical. That will leave us with the assertion (easily sourced from the Catechism) that the Church is the successor of the College of Apostles, of which Saint Peter was the head. What's wrong with that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, PMAnderson. What's "wrong with that" is that it is still a doctrinal assertion. All of the five patriarchies (and some other Christian communities) claim to be a successor to one of the apostles. But the first and second centuries C.E. are clouded in the mists of history and we don't really know what the connection is between the original "early Christians" and the Catholic Church of the Edict of Milan era.

Sure, Catholics and Orthodox insist that there is a continuity and I suspect most Protestants believe it as well. The Restorationists believe that the Christian faith got lost somewhere along the way.

Here's what I wrote a little earlier today but didn't get to post due to other real-life duties:

IMO, there are different ways to present what PM says above depending on the article in which it is presented. This article is a high-level summary and thus should provide a concise summary of the issue without getting into the details (except perhaps in a Note). There are also History of the Catholic Church, History of Christianity and History of Early Christianity which could use more detailed expositions of the issue. In this article, we could say something like "The Catholic Church believes that it is the continuation of the church founded by Jesus. Historians and theologians continue to offer various interpretations of this doctrinal assertion." We might even elaborate on what those "various interpretations" are in a Note; however, a full exposition of the gory details belongs in one or more of the other "History of..." articles. --Richard (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Catholic Church believes that it is the continuation of the church founded by Jesus. I would buy this if it ended of the original Christian Church or church (which should satisfy all but the most imperialist Roman Catholics). The two theological positions appear to be that the Church was founded by Jesus, or that the Church was inspired by Jesus (and founded after Good Friday); the Catechism does not decide between them; Catholics hold both. Therefore we must not decide that the Church believes one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Historians and theologians continue to offer various interpretations of this doctrinal assertion Why mention historians? Insofar as they are acting as historians, they are not interpreting doctrinal assertions; many historians, indeed, will not agree with this one. Chadwick was an Anglican, for example; many Anglicans would agree that the Roman Catholic Church is a continuation (or branch) of the original Church, but's that not the same thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I of course agree that it's a doctrinal assertion - and was not proposing to present it as anything other than The Church believes... Guess you can't take anything for granted around here. <sigh> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There is definite support from historians. Whether Hesperian and others want to see it or not. As the sayong goes "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see." We need a statement on the historicity of the Church's origins to make the article FACTUAL and COMPREHENSIVE. It cannot be left out. Xandar 13:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question in section #Professor Thomas Noble above. Perhaps you did not see it. Hesperian 23:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed wording for the lead

("Origin and mission" section to be adjusted if necesssary)

"The Catholic Church believes that it is the continuation of the church founded by Jesus. Historians and theologians continue to offer various interpretations of this doctrinal assertion."

As stated above, we can provide a high-level overview of the issues (Peter being in Rome, founding a Church, being Bishop of Rome, etc) in a Note. However, the full exposition of these issues will be in various "History of..." articles related to Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular.

This fits with Xandar's comment that "in this article we are not really that concerned about whether Peter was officially called "Bishop of Rome", whether Rome had a single bishop, or Peter was the only one known as Bishop of Rome." It is also very close to the old "some historians agree but some disagree" but now we simply refer to a very vague assertion that there are "various interpretations".

Comments? --Richard (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I dispute both sentences; see section immediately above;

"The Church believes that it is the continuation of the original Christian church. Theologians offer various interpretations of this doctrinal assertion."

would be unexceptionable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the text in the current version of the text:

"The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community originally founded by Jesus upon the apostles,[22] among whom Simon Peter held the position of chief apostle.[23]"

Reference 22 is to paragraphs 857-859 of the Catechism. Reference 23 is to paragraphs 551-553.

What is objectionable about this? Do you argue that it is not what the Church teaches?

As for the second text, what is wrong with saying that "Historians and theologians continue to offer various interpretations of this doctrinal assertion." If a historian or theologian says that the doctrinal assertion has little basis in historical evidence, that "interpretation" may be different from the interpretation of another historian or theologian. Why is it wrong to mention historians in this context?

--Richard (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No I'm afraid Richard's second sentence is so vague as to be waffle. The historical continuity of the Catholic Church is not just a "doctrinal assertion." There is historical reality there, and it needs to be stated, however briefly, in the article. Those of us who take this view are quite amenable to the views of contrary liberal-critical scholars being included as an alternate point of view, but it would be wrong to allow the information on the Church's history to be censored or edited-out to please certain factional viewpoints. The second sentence should read something like. "Many scholars/historians agree the Church's historic continuity from the original community led by the Apostles Peter and Paul in Rome, while some others disagree." Xandar 13:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, th sentence you proposed is POV in its very wording; first, by choosing to begin with the "agreement" we are placing emphasis on this position, and second, by using "many" for the "agreement" and "some" for the "disagreement" the implication is that more historians agree than disagree. At this time, more sources seem to have been provided on this talk page for the "disagree" part rather than the "agree" part, and many editors (myself included) dispute whether most of the "agree" sources actually support that statement. Would you accept something like "Many scholars disagree that the Church's traditional narrative represents historic fact, while some affirm the traditional beliefs." Karanacs (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Both versions fail to convey what I'm sure is the case, that most historians (like Chadwick) accept that there is not nearly enough evidence to form a clear historical opinion on the matter at all. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And a sentence stating that (and nothing else) would be acceptable to me. Karanacs (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So you're drawing a distinction between "Most historians assert that there is scant historical evidence to support the traditional narrative" vs. "Most historians assert that the traditional narrative is false". The difference being between "using historical methods, we can't tell if it's true" vs. "we know it's demonstrably false". I think I could go with that although sourcing "most historians" might be problematic.

First of all, does this proposal from Karanacs represent a step forward? Are there any objections?

Second, how supportable is this with our current sources? We need something stronger than a few historians saying "there is scant evidence...". We need someone who explicitly says "Most historians agree that there is scant evidence." I think we've seen a few of the second type of assertion. Can someone dig them up and present them here for consideration?

--Richard (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Those statements go further than I would like to go. Would it be acceptable to focus on the Church's doctrinal or Tradition followed by a recognition that there is dispute among historians about its actual historicity. The wording is clumsy, but we focus on what the Church teaches and we acknowledge a dispute among historians without qualifying it. the sources already provided would easily support the disagrement among historians. Xandar and Nancy, can you support this type of language? -^StormRider 21:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

StormRider, it is my impression that even the historians who support the "traditional narrative" agree that the amount of historical evidence from the 1st century is darn near non-existent and that from the 2nd century is scant (just a few writers such as Irenaeus but nothing approaching historical records or historical writings, Josephus and Tacitus being the exceptions). The issue is not whether the evidence is scant, it is. The issue is whether or not the scant evidence supports a belief in the traditional narrative. The "yes, it does" school takes the historical evidence at face value. The "no, it doesn't" uses conjecture, inference and "reading between the lines" to dismiss the historical evidence.

So... what's wrong with saying "There is some historical evidence regarding the connection between the church fouded by Jesus and the Catholic Church.(cite Ignatius, Irenaeus et al) There is a wide range of opinions among historians as to whether the historical evidence is sufficient to support the Church's teaching."?(cite Vidmar et al) If you really want to be pedantic, you could add "Some believe there is while others disagree."

--Richard (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I like this, myself, and think it's a great compromise if not a major step toward consensus. I think alot of what I've read here and elsewhere is a circular false argument on both sides. While there's no smoking gun on the Church side like a hotel receipt showing that Peter stayed at "Ceasar's Palace" when it was just a Roman Inn or a Papal Bull issued by him stating:"I is so too the Bishop of Rome", the best they can do is point to Tertullian (mystery to me why he has not been brought up here), Irenaueus, Clement, etc. Whereas the skeptical side either rejects these outright with the notion that Peter spoke cryptically when "writing from Babylon", etc. As much as the Church lacks "hard evidence" for historians, the historian also lacks the hard evidence to say "Peter wasn't there".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I also like this Richard, can we open a new section to discuss that wording, I think it is the most accurate I have seen so far. We are only trying to expose Reader to the scholarly differences of opinion regarding the traditional narrative. I have been busy and will be busy for the rest of this week but I did find this in Bokenkotter's Concise History of the Catholic Church page 30 quote "The traditional Catholic view of the organization of the Church is that Jesus himself organized it by appointing twelve apostles and giving them authority to assume control of the Church after his death. This is the picture presupposed and developed by Luke particularly; but many scholars, including some Catholic ones, view this conception as a retrojection of the later-developed Church system into the primitive era. ... Many historians, therefore, prefer the theory that the primitive Church only slowly organized itself and shaped its system of authority in response to the variety of situations that existed in different localities. And in their view it only gradually settled everywhere on the three-tiered structure-bishop, priest, deacon-as the one most conducive to its mission." I think this is exactly what we have been searching for all along - a historian who makes a statement about what historians believe. I would like to highlight his statement "many scholars, including some Catholic ones". This does not address the issue of how many scholars agree the Church was founded by Jesus except to reveal that there are "some" and I believe this should be in the article's Origin and Mission section. NancyHeise ^talk 03:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"I think this is exactly what we have been searching for all along - a historian who makes a statement about what historians believe." Indeed; well done! (Bokenkotter is both Catholic theologian and Catholic historian, and I can well imagine topics upon which his views must be interpreted as personal opinion or church dogma; but on this particular point he looks like a solid source.) Hesperian 04:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Impasse

And so... it appears that we are at an impasse. Xandar (and presumably Nancy) insist on the phrase "Many scholars/historians agree affirm the Church's historic continuity from the original community led by the Apostles Peter and Paul in Rome" ("agreeing" the Church's historic continuity sounds like a British usage of the word "agree"; it sounds a bit awkward in American English).

John Vidmar appears to be the one mutually respected scholar that unequivocally supports this assertion.

Other editors, especially PMAnderson, resist any mention of historians affirming the Church's doctrinal assertion.

Is there a way forward from here?

--Richard (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that I see. There are two editors who insist that this article will not be factual unless it says what they want, although they have no sources for it. (The most Vidmar will support is that there is (in his view) significant evidence that Peter was the sole Bishop of Rome; others, including distinguished Roman Catholic historians, disagree.) They have a couple of revert-warring meat-puppets, not brave enough even to discuss the issues. Suggestions? I would be ready to tag and walk away, leaving it for a new influx of editors, but that will not be stable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't insist on a particular phrase. However there does need to be an acknowledgement of the historic continuity of the Church. The objectors to this do not seem to have any proof of another origin for the Catholic Church. They just seem dead set against admitting that historical evidence does support the Church's view of its own origin. We can't throw out important facts in the cause of obscurantism and factional viewpoints. Xandar 01:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That usage of "agree" isn't very normal British either. Peter jackson (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

acknowledgement of the historic continuity of the Church. The objectors to this do not seem to have any proof of another origin for the Catholic Church. They just seem dead set against admitting that historical evidence does support the Church's view of its own origin. We can't throw out important facts...

Compound nonsense.

• If what Xandar wishes to assert were a fact, he would have no trouble finding a historian who states it (and all of it) in his own voice, not attributing it to someone else.
• The rest of this is worse. "You must accept what I say unless you can prove it isn't so" is the cry of every crank idea from Time Cube on down; it is the way by which fantasists evade the response "We don't know that; there is no evidence for it, against the customary view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary of this talk page

• "Many historians agree with the Catholic Church's view of its origin."
• " I don't agree with that. Who are these historians? What are your sources?"
• "There are heaps of sources."
• "Well, name one."
• "Pagani."
• "A 19th century Catholic apologist, not a historian."
• "You're quibbling; there are heaps of sources."
• "Well, Pagani is not one of them."
• "There are heaps of sources."
• "Do you concede that Pagani is not one of them?"
• "There are heaps of sources."
• "Well, name one."
• "Noble."
• "Noble doesn't say that."
• "You're quibbling; there are heaps of sources."
• "Well, Noble is not one of them."
• "There are heaps of sources."
• "Do you concede that Noble is not one of them?"
• "There are heaps of sources."
• "Well, name one."
• "Vidmar."
• "Vidmar doesn't say that."
• "You're quibbling; there are heaps of sources."
• "Well, Vidmar is not one of them."
• "There are heaps of sources."
• "Do you concede that Vidmar is not one of them?"
• "There are heaps of sources."
• "Well, name one."
• "Horizon."
• "Horizon doesn't say that."
• "You're quibbling; there are heaps of sources."
• "Well, Horizon is not one of them."
• "There are heaps of sources."
• "Do you concede that Horizon is not one of them?"
• "There are heaps of sources."
• "Well, name one."
• "Chadwick."
• "Chadwick doesn't say that."
• "You're quibbling; there are heaps of sources."
• "Well, Chadwick is not one of them."
• "There are heaps of sources."
• "Do you concede that Chadwick is not one of them?"
• "There are heaps of sources."
• "Well, name one."

Who wants to guess what comes next? Hesperian 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wabbit season?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Or rather...

• "Many historians agree with the Catholic Church's view of its origin."
• " I don't agree with that. Who are these historians? What are your sources?"
• "They're listed in the references."
• "I don't like those historians. Some of them are Catholics. Others may be Christians."
• "Aren't Christians proper historians?"
• "No. They're all falsifiers of truth. Only atheists should have an opinion"
• "Have you any proof for your contentions?"
• "No serious historian believes the Catholic Church originated in Rome."
• "Who says this?"
• "Here's someone who says we don't know there was a monarchical bishop. Here's someone else who says Peter might not have been in Rome for exactly 25 years. Here's someone who guesses there might not have been anyone called a Bishop in Rome at all. Your whole case is busted."
• "What has any of that to do with whether the Church started in Peter's Rome or not?"
• "I don't care. I hate your references."
• "Here are some other references."
• "They don't say what you claim they say."
• "They show continuity of the Church, which is the point under discussion."
• "They don't show that Peter was actually called the Bishop of Rome. He didn't start the Church in Rome."
• "That's not the point. They show hje was there and they show continuity."
• "I don't agree. No scholar supports the idea that the Catholic Church is the same Church that started in Rome."
• "That's ridiculous. Prove it."
• "No. You provide more references. Then I can refuse to accept those as well..."

etc. Xandar 01:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Any fool agrees that there has been "continuity of the Church". That is not the point under discussion. Hesperian 01:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

... unless you're saying that "the Catholic Church's view of its origin" is only that "there has been continuity". Is that what you are saying? Hesperian 04:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, not every fool agrees that there has been "continuity" but those who disagree are a minority (i.e. those who believe that the Roman church was invented in the 3rd or 4th century and is discontinuous from early Christianity).

I think Xandar is saying that some historians buy the entire "traditional narrative" (and I expect both Nancy and Xandar do). He acknowledges that other historians question various parts of the traditional narrative and some even reject it altogether. What he seems to want is to assert that there are a non-trivial number of historians who accept the traditional narrative and that those who reject it not be portrayed as the overwhelming majority the way some other editors wish to.

--Richard (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know Xandar et al. are saying that "some historians buy the entire traditional narrative". The problem is that they seem to think they can prove that point by establishing the far, far weaker position that "some historians agree there has been continuity". The story of this entire talk page is the repeated presentation of sources that are claimed to support the "some historians buy the entire traditional narrative" claim, but turn out not to do so. This is false sourcing. It is dishonest. It is unethical. It is unacceptable. And what we're seeing here is not one or two errors. It is systemic abuse of sources. It is source after source after source, all falsely claimed in support of a position.

We don't cite claims to sources that don't make those claims. People who engage in recidivist false sourcing don't belong here, and should be unceremoniously kicked out. Xandar calls this "quibbling". That beggars belief. This is fundamental stuff. Hesperian 05:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Above, Nancy tried to run the argument that when Chadwick did not repeat the exact wording of some statement from his book-length Early Church in a later chapter-length contribution to the Oxford History, he was "eliminating" a "quote" and therefore must have either changed his mind or been forced by the Oxford editor to retract his earlier statement. (Never mind that there are no quotes at all from the first book in Chadwick's contribution to the second; the chapter in the second book is an entirely new composition, so "quotes" were never in view in the first place.) Of course she's never quite clear on these things, and muddies the waters sufficiently that when confronted with the absurdity of such an argument she can say, "I never said that." But it's clear that's the gambit she was trying to run, and that she was doing it so she and Xandar could still claim Chadwick for a position which Chadwick had explicitly repudiated. This is not only bad sourcing but atrociously bad logic--so bad that it's hard to believe it's meant to be taken seriously. Harmakheru (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I don't dispute that there has been some bad logic thrown around on this page. However, I think we have a chance to reach a mutually agreeable solution and throwing brickbats will not aid in this process. Would you please put a lid on this line of discussion in the interest of making progress on the article? Let's keep our focus on the project (writing an encyclopedia) and leave personalities and past offenses out of it for now. --Richard (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"We have a chance"? No, we don't have a chance; not until certain people agree to follow basic rules of engagement, including not making false claims about what a source says, and not muddying arguments with irrational bollocks. Not pointing out these problems is, at most, number three on the list of things not to be doing here. Hesperian 07:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too thrilled to be saying this because it's not exactly my kind of thing but... "All we are saying is... give peace a chance." See my "trying again" post below. --Richard (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying again

OK, here's an attempt to integrate my proposed text with the Bokenkotter quote that NancyHeise found:

The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community originally founded by Jesus upon the apostles, among whom Simon Peter held the position of chief apostle. The Church also believes that its bishops, through apostolic succession, are consecrated successors of these apostles, and that the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of Peter, possesses a universal primacy of jurisdiction and pastoral care. This traditional conception of the founding of the Church is recounted in histories of the Catholic Church; however because the elements of the narrative are based on fragmentary historical evidence , there is a wide range of opinions among historians as to whether the historical evidence is sufficient to support the Church's teaching. "Many scholars, including some Catholic ones, view [the traditional] conception as a retrojection of the later-developed Church system into the primitive era".

Discussion

Richard, I think that looks good. I came across another source that may help you supplement the article text. It is written by a Lutheran professor of New Testament and published by the Protestant John Knox Press. The author provides a good commentary on what historians think about the historicity of the Gospel narratives. Basically he says what we have been trying to achieve here all this time - that there are some who agree and some who disagree. Please read the end of page 29 and the beginning of page 30 of this source. [24] Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 13:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I'm sorry to say that the quote you provided is tangential to the topic. I think the source is fine but is Powell's argument is more relevant to the discussion of the Historical Jesus than it is to our discussion of the "foundation of the Catholic Church". Clearly the two are related but it's obvious that Powell is talking about the Historical Jesus and the Gospels rather than the Church tradition of Peter and Paul founding the See of Rome and starting the papal succession. Too bad, Powell's argument is dead-on (some agree with the Gospels but those who do can no longer simply cite the Gospels as their sole proof). --Richard (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Where does the quotation ending before note 27 open? I think this is ok, although I'm still not sure we need it all in the main text - maybe the later bit in a footnote (with its own footnotes?). It's on the right lines anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Modified the Vidmar reference to provide the quote that I think we should use. It is perhaps too long and could be cut down. The quotation mark before note 27 is a typo.--Richard (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the quotation mark is a typo.

On the merits of the proposal.

• I still think the first sentence should say "original Christian community", thus ducking the question (important to some people, but not vital here) of whether the community was "founded" in the Gospels or in Acts - or both. The Catechism can be read both ways, and I see no reason to doubt that this is intentional. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• This traditional conception of the founding of the Church is recounted in histories of the Catholic Church Misplaced, and doubly misleading. Nothing in the first two sentences (except "founded by Jesus") is the traditional conception - as opposed to any other. The actual tradition is indeed recounted in histories, only to be followed by an explanation that much of it is unevidenced or worse.
• there is a wide range of opinions among historians as to whether the historical evidence is sufficient to support the Church's teaching The Church's teaching makes only one historical claim (that there is some line of Apostolic succession from the Apostles to the present bishops). There is no dispute about whether there is evidence enough to support that; there isn't; even if Clement was a "bishop", we have no idea who consecrated him. As far as I know, however, there is also no dispute that it is at least very plausible that every bishop was indeed invested by apostles or other bishops, even if we don't know who.
• Is the error here that the traditional narrative is the Church's teaching (rather than the teaching of many Roman Catholics, past and present, which is obvious)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

PManderson's second argument seems to be that the official Catholic doctrine doesn't say much about the history between the post-Pentecost church and the establishment of the Church of Rome as "head" of the Church. Certainly, nobody has come up with quotations from the Catechism to indicate that it asserts historical facts as Church teaching. To be clear here, the Catechism neither asserts nor denies the historical facts, it is simply silent on the question. Nonetheless, Nancy asserts that such historical facts are indeed included in at least one set of materials approved for catechesis. How do we resolve this? Do we take a strict constructionist approach and assert "If it ain't explicitly stated in the Catechism, then it isn't official Church doctrine?" Do we need to make any comment about what historians think about Peter going to Rome, founding the See of Rome, serving as its bishop and consecrating Linus?

PMAnderson challenges the sentence "This traditional conception of the founding of the Church is recounted in histories of the Catholic Church" as misplaced and misleading. What I'm trying to say is that we can probably find many books covering the history of the Catholic Church that support the "traditional conception". Perhaps these are "popular history books" rather than those written by serious historians of early Christianity. Nevertheless, such books are published and widely read by Catholics. I think it is important to make this point somewhere even if we follow the point with an assertion that "many historians, even some Catholic ones" reject the historicity of the "traditional conception".

--Richard (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

PMAnderson wrote "Is the error here that the traditional narrative is the Church's teaching (rather than the teaching of many Roman Catholics, past and present, which is obvious)?"

Yes, I think that this has been the central bone of contention although we have not recognized and acknowledged it as such. The mainstream opinion is that there is "some sort of apostolic succession" and that the entire Christian community today (Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants) are a continuation of the original Christian community with the Protestants generally dismissing apostolic succession as a doctrine. If we construe Catholic teaching narrowly, historians can be said to accept it but if we add the "traditional conception" in, then historians begin to attack various elements of it as unsubstantiated retrojection of the later-developed Church onto the primitive Church. Peter was probably the senior apostle but he was not likely to have been a monarchical bishop even in Rome, let alone over other churches. The primacy of Rome probably developed over the next 2-3 centuries and was institutionalized when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.

Xandar and NancyHeise have insisted that we communicate the support of some/many historians for the historicity of the Church's teaching. PMAnderson asks what exactly is the Church's teaching for which we are seeking to establish the support of historians.

The Bokenkotter quote establishes that there is not only support for the narrow construction of the Church's teaching based on the Catechism but also among Catholic historians for the traditional conception. This is admittedly an indirect inference but if "Many historians including some Catholic ones reject the traditional conception" then we can only conclude that some (yea, even "many" or "most") Catholic historians accept it.

--Richard (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence is taken almost directly from Bokenkotter. I've just added the proper quotation format. I would prefer if we could reword the sentence (I, for one, didn't know what retrojection meant, and I suspect a lot of our readers may have the same problem). If not, we may need to add an attribution so that the sentence is not just a quotation. Karanacs (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeh... by all means, propose refinements to my proposal. I'm just trying to find the "middle road" between the two warring camps. There was only so much effort I could put into this at midnight. That's the beauty of a collaborative effort. It can always be made better with another set of eyes. Excelsior! --Richard (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I DON'T like Richard's latest proposal, since it veers too far from the clear statement of the historic continuity of the Church from Apostolic times that is needed. It also gives too much weight to the liberal POV.

A)Specifically there is no mention of exactly what the "wide range of opinions among historians" quoted, are.

B)The sentence "This traditional conception of the founding of the Church is recounted in histories of the Catholic Church" is misleading since it confuses two issues, Petrine primacy and continuity, and then strongly implies that only "Histories of the Catholic Church" support the traditional viewpoint. No. The traditional viewpoint on the CONTINUITY of the Church has wider historical support than this, as evidenced.

C)The final sentence "Many scholars, including some Catholic ones, view [the traditional] conception as a retrojection of the later-developed Church system into the primitive era", is one-sided and POV. It attempts to denegrate what is termed as the "traditional view", posits the Catholic view (and only the Catholic view) as divided, and presents unsubstantiated and unevidenced theories to the reader as facts or the strong majority view. That is a major distortion. None of this represents the sources provided. Xandar 19:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, re your point (C), the sentence in question is an almost direct copy of the Bokenkotter quote provided by Nancy. We will have to rephrase it or quote it directly to avoid the charge of plagiarism. Are you questioning Bokenkotter's credibility on this issue? --Richard (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I view the way the quote is used here to be misleading. Since without context or counterbalance it gives a false impression of the balance of historical evidence on the subject. Xandar 19:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Then present some of this "historical evidence". None of the other sources go even as far as Bodenkotter does in the direction you would like to go. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Richard) a) I don't believe this article is the place to go into detail on the "wide range of opinions" - a greater level of detail would be appropriate in History of the Catholic Church, and I suspect we could find quite enough to make a full Founding of the Catholic Church article. This is an overview; the individual arguments do not need to be detailed.

b) Can you provide an alternative wording for this? I don't think I quite understand your point, and a proposed alternative text might help clear that up for me

c) I don't read this as saying that only the Catholic view as divided, although it does point out that there is some division among Catholic historians. However, I don't see that the phrase is necessary in the article either. As for the rest, apart from the fact that this is a direct quote from a source already heavily used in the article, the majority of the sources we've seen on this page absolutely support this wording. We've seen no evidence that another view would be the majority opinion. Karanacs (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

a) If we're saying there is a range of opinions, we do need to indicate what that range is - otherwise false conclusions may be drawn by the reader.

b) I will try to come up with an alternative wording for the passage sometime tonight.

c) I'm not sure we have evidence that any view is the majority opinion. Half the time we are arguing different things here. Some of us are discussing that the historical continuity of the Church began in the 1st century. Others are arguing that the detailed structure and institutions of the Church did not appear in the first century - which is a different topic. Xandar 20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with PMAnderson and Karanacs) Xandar, you have not commented on PMAnderson's assertion that continuity from apostolic times is not really in question by the mainstream. What seems to be questioned by "many historians including some Catholic ones" is whether the historical account supports the traditional conception of Peter traveling to Rome, becoming its first bishop and consecrating Linus who consecrated Anacletus and so on. The proposed passage doesn't say that the traditional conception isn't true but it does say that the historical evidence is "fragmentary". (Perhaps not the best word as it could suggest that we're talking about fragments of documents. What I really meant is that there is no single unitary account until much later. The earliest accounts only offer a tidbit here and a tidbit there and the "traditional conception" was created by weaving these various sources together. What Bokenkotter seems to be saying is what I said earlier in a much more light-hearted way: Some historians feel that Jesus never sat down with the apostles and said, "OK, you guys are bishops and you'll ordain priests and deacons and Peter is head bishop and all of you make sure to consecrate your successors as bishops." According to Bokenkotter, these historians (not all; certainly not all Catholic historians) feel that the Catholic Church "retrojected" the three-tier structure onto the history of the primitive church. What is your objection to stating this in the article? (How much of it belongs in the lead is a second-order question that we can tackle after we nail this one down.) --Richard (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard. Once again I think the discussion has been derailed from its original topic. The original wording that gave rise to the debate said simply that the Church believed that it was the continuation of the original church founded by Jesus on Peter, and that "many historians" supported this view. What is now being set-up, Aunt-Sallywise, in order to knock it down, is a detailed narrative including Peter being "made" official Bishop of Rome, or even Pope, ruling for 25 years and then handing on a monarchical fully-formed papacy. Of course very few historians are going to commit themselves to that full detailed narrative. But that was never in the article. What we are discussing is that the Catholic Church of today being a direct continuation of the original Church led by Peter and Paul in Rome. And for THAT there is historical support (and a lot more than for other theories).

My objection to saying that the Catholic Church "retrojected" the three-tier structure onto the history of the early Church, is that it is misleading in this context. It is confusing two different things, continuity and structure, in order to imply that BOTH are unevidenced. I also disagreeto reference to Catholic historians being made without identifying the opposition as Liberal or revisionist historians. This again wrongly implies that the Catholic position on its origins is held only by a small sectional minority, while all other historians and even a lot of Catholic historians reject it. Xandar 20:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be problematic to take out the Catholic historians bit. Karanacs (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point people to Bokenkotter's endorsement of the Gospels as valid historical documents - an endorsement he qualifies somewhat - see these:

• p. 8 "When we come to the so-called public life of Jesus, which begins with his baptism by John at the River Jordan, we must admit that we do not have the kind of biographical details that readers look for today, such as (lists details). But there is no need for skepticism. More than a century of rigorous critical analysis of the New Testament has in no way disproven the constant belief of Christians that their Scriptures are based on the actual words and deeds of a unique historical personage."
• p. 8 qualification statement "The Gospels, as we've said, constitute-practically speaking- our only source of historical facts about Jesus, and they were written from forty to seventy years after his death. Their authors drew on an oral tradition that disseminated stories about the deeds and words of Jesus in the form of sermons and catechetical and liturgical material."

Bokenkotter has a lot to say about this subject does anyone want to hear more? NancyHeise ^talk 20:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Romulus

Peter as first bishop of Rome is in much the same situation as Romulus as first King of Rome (there are differences, which I will cheerfully admit; chiefly that there is no other evidence that there ever was a Romulus - whereas the Gospels and Acts are credible contemporary evidence that there was a man called Peter). Let me discuss Romulus, as very few people are emotionally committed to the Romulan Theory:

• There is a traditional narrative that Romulus founded Rome, containing many vivid details.
• The oldest evidence of the existence of such a tradition is centuries after Romulus.
• No-one, of ocurse, can prove Romulus' founding false, any more than they can prove he did not become the god Quirinius; there is no credible evidence (on either side) on the government of the first century AUC.
• There is some evidence that the tradition has grown in the telling.

Therefore very few historians, writing carefully, deny the existence of Romulus; they write that there is no (or very little) actual evidence of his existence.

This does not mean that our article on History of Rome should be a middle way between asserting the unfounded tradition and denying it.

"And the moral of that is..." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"... when in Rome, do as the Romulans do"? Harmakheru (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this may have been WP:BEANS; the Trekkers should be along any minute...;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Professor John Vidmar

Here's John Vidmar's version from The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages on Googlebooks here [25]:

• p 7 "Christianity began in Jerusalem, the capital of Judaism, and spread from that city. The church regarded itself as the New Israel."
• p 20 "(author quotes Acts 2:5-11 describing Pentecost) The importance of this for Christianity is that these first Christians - Peter is reported to have converted 5000 of them himself - return to their various Jewish communities in northern Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, Greece, and Rome, and begin to form Christian cells. It is these small communities that Paul worked so feverishly to keep together. His letters read like a road map of early Christianity - all because of that first Pentecost, which the church rightly observes as its foundation day."
• p 21 (author quotes Acts 9:1-5) The ramifications of this event are twofold. First, Jesus equates himself with the church: 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? ... I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.' Secondly, something drastic happened to Paul. He changed so quickly and so completely from being a persecutor of Christians to being an eager Christian that no one who heard of it could believe it."
• p 22 "Paul's importance is that he combined the two disparate worlds of Rome and Jerusalem. ... He made sure that each community did not become an entity unto itself, and because of his efforts the catholicity (universality) of the church was guaranteed."
• p. 24 "The shift from a Jewish church to a Gentile church was fortuitous in that the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman army in 70AD. The church in Jerusalem, the mother church of Christianity, for all practical purposes ceased to exist. But, by then, the church was so well-established in Rome that it no longer depended on its Jewish support."
• p. 39 "Tradition and considerable evidence has it that the apostles became heads of local churches: James the Great and James the Less in Jerusalem, John in Antioch, Mark in Alexandria, Peter and Paul in Rome. Their authority was then passed on to successors. This is referred to as "apostolic succession." Clement, in 95 AD, wrote to the Corinthians that the bishops were the successors to the apostles, who were the successors to Christ. Irenaeus and Tertullian both mentioned lists of bishops who succeeded Peter and Paul in Rome, though the lists are slightly different: Linus, Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Sixtus."
• p. 39-40 "Both Catholic and Protestant scholars agree that Peter had an authority that superceded that of the other apostles. Peter is their spokesman at several events, he conducts the election of Matthias, his opinion in the debate over converting Gentiles was crucial, etc. The evidence that Peter was "bishop" of Rome is corroborated by both positive and "negative" evidence. Positively, Clement's letter to the Corinthians situates Peter in Rome by mentioning his death there. Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Romans and says, "I do not command you as Peter and Paul did." The lists of Roman bishops given by Irenaeus and Tertullian support this, as does the honor given Peter's supposed burial place on Vatican Hill. Eamon Duffy's text for a BBC production, Saints and Sinners, soft-pedals the position of Peter as bishop. Duffy claims that there were five Christian neighborhoods in Rome, and that Peter could not possibly have been supervisor over all of them. One argument against this is the fact that the historical letters (from Paul, Ignatius, and Clement) are all addressed to "the Romans," and not one particular community in Rome. Historians cite negative evidence as well, namely that there is no rival tradition. No other city claims Peter as its bishop except Antioch, and even it conceded that Peter had moved on to Rome."
• p. 40-41 "Several pieces of evidence indicate that the Bishop of Rome even after Peter held some sort of preeminence among other bishops. (author provides long list of quotes from original documents) ... None of these examples, taken by themselves, would be sufficient to prove the primacy of the successors of Peter and Paul. Taken together, however, they point to a Roman authority which was recognized in the early church as going beyond that of other churches."
• Clearly we can add Vidmar to the list of those experts and university professors of Catholic Church history that agree with the Church's version of its own history. NancyHeise ^talk 03:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll grant you Vidmar. He seems to have good credentials, is a reputable historian, works in the field well enough to know the right sources and use them intelligently, and actively engages those who disagree with his position. I wouldn't say this particular book is a "scholarly" one--he says he's writing for a popular audience, and he's clearly writing in support of a confessional point of view--but at least it's written by someone who seems to know what he's talking about. Harmakheru (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I note, however, that the only appearance of Catholic in those quotations describes post-Reformation scholarship. I have no objection to this as a source for a sentence on the origin of Christianity - nor for a sentence on the origin of individual Christian congregations; even a sentence saying that some Catholic scholars accept that there is significant evidence that Peter was Bishop of Rome - Castelot is a Catholic scholar too; but discussing the "origins of the Catholic Church" in Wikipedia's voice really require a source that says so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The title of the book is The Catholic Church throughout the Ages and the author does not indicate that he is separating the emergence of the early church from the history of the Catholic Church. NancyHeise ^talk 13:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

An argumentum ex silentio. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Henry Chadwick [26]

From The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. There is a copy on googlebooks here [27] that allows for a "limited preview".

• p. 21-22 "As an act of God, Easter is not accessible to the methods of historical investigation. The historian knows that something important occurred to transform the disciples from a huddle of frightened men into bold missionaries risking their lives for their faith."
• p. 22-23 "Among the apostles Peter held a generally recognized position of leadership: the gospel tradition preserves explicit commissions given to him by Jesus (Matt. 16:16-18; Luke 22:31-2, John 21:16-17), and his prominent role is conceded in the Pauline letters. According to the Acts of the Apostles Peter took the lead in opening membership of the church to Gentiles."
• p. 33 "A much earlier development than the biblical canon was the evolution of the threefold ministry of bishop, presbyter, and deacon. The apostles of Jesus were not merely witnesses to the Lord's resurrection (clearly an unrepeateable function in the historical sense), but also a source of decision-making or pastoral jurisdiction in the early communities. The tradition recorded that Jesus had entrusted his church with the power of the keys, that is, a commission to decide disputes adn to give rulings about erring individuals. As the early church came to see that history was not coming to an immediate end, they also saw some permanent ministerial structure was needed."
• p. 34 "The mother church at Jerusalem in the apostolic age had a single head in the person of James, the Lord's brother. In the Gentile churches spiritual leadership might be in the hands of 'presbytyrs' (Acts 20:17) under the overall authority of an apostle such as St Paul. But it soon seemed natural for one man to be held first among equals; or the first prominent convert in a city, like Stephanas at Corinth (1 Cor. 16: 15-16), might form a community round his household. At Philippi there were bishops and deacons, officers also mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus. Evidently the general itinerant care exercised by Paul and his helpers is supplemented by permanent resident officeholders. Several other first-century texts speak of the two 'orders' of bishop and deacon; the title bishop is also applied to people called presbyters. In the Pastoral Epistles the noun presbyters often appears in the plural, bishop in th esingular, suggestiong that one man was beginning to have a special position in both worship and charitable administration. For many centuries it was common form for a bishop to address a presbyter as 'fellow presbyter'. The main function of early presbyters was not to preach or celebrate but to give counsel to bishops."
• p. 34 "The emergence of the 'monarchial' bishop seems to have been more rapid in some regions and cities than others. The bishop and his clergy formed a visible manifestation of the continuity of the community in consequence of the fact that their due succession was treated with care. A bishop went to represent his people at the ordination of bishops in neighboring churches. He also conducted correspondence with other churches. He was the normal minister of baptism, the president of the eucharistic assembly, 'blamelessly offering gifts' as the first epistle of Clement put it (before the end of the first century)."
• P. 34 "Of the manner of making clergy, very early texts speak of prayer and laying on of hands by which was conferred a charismatic gift appropriate to the office (2 Tim. 1:6). In antiquity no insignia such as cup or Bible were handed to the person ordained, and the clergy did not initially wear special vestments; they were simply instructed to see that what they wore was 'wholly clean'. By the third century it became common for at least some clergy in at least some places to wear either white or black - black being more penitential."
• p. 35 "Combating second - century Gnosticism, Irenaeus appealed to the 'public' doctrine taught in the churches of apostolic foundation by the successive bishops, and especially cited the succession-list of Rome, 'the very large, ancient, and universally known church founded by the two glorious apostles Peter and Paul' - for (Irenaeus adds) all believers everywhere in every church are necessarily in agreement with Rome as an apostolic foundation with a cosmopolitan membership and extensive dealings with other churches. The Christian community in Rome was Greek speaking until the mid-third century, and had frequent contacts with churches of the Greek East. Towards the latter part of the first century, Rome's presiding cleric named Clement wrote on behalf of his church to remonstrate with the Corinthian Christians who had ejected clergy without either financial or charismatic endowment in favor of a fresh lot; Clement apologized not for intervening but for not having acted sooner. Moreover, during the second century the Roman community's leadership was evident in its generous alms to poorer churches. About 165 they erected monuments to their martyred apostles, to Peter in a necropolis on the Vatican Hill, to Paul on the road to Ostia, at the traditional sites of their burial. Roman bishops were already conscious of being custodians of the authentic tradition or true interpretation of the apostolic writings. In the conflict with Gnosticism Rome played a decisive role, and likewise in the deep division in Asia Minor created by the claims of Montanist prophets ..."
• p. 35-36 "It was also the first occasion on which the bishop of Rome is known to have invoked the text of Matthew 16:18 to justify his primatial jurisdiction. The Roman church was exercising leadership long before anyone appealed to this text. Most ancient exegetes take the 'rock' on which Jesus will build his church to be St Peter's faith. ... Until the fourth century his authority lay in being 'successor of Peter and Paul'. The influence of Matthew 16:16 led to the dropping of Paul. Not until Innocent III (d. 1216) is the title 'successor of Peter' replaced by 'vicar of Christ'."
• Clearly Chadwick's take on the bishop of Rome and the developement of the three ecclesiastical offices is quite different than Duffy's POV. Neither does Chadwick discount Irenaeus letter as something other than a historic document. He does not contradict what Irenaeus says with his own interpretation of something different like Duffy does, he just uses this letter to tell the story as if it is an undeniable piece of the historical puzzle. Which is how the Catholic Church see it too. NancyHeise ^talk 04:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another clergyman. Toeing the Church line. Writing within the framework of Catholic doctrine. Once again confirms Catholic tradition. Proves nothing whatsoever about what historians think. Hesperian

Chadwick was not Catholic [28]. NancyHeise ^talk 05:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Church of England considers itself to be Catholic.

But, for the sake of the discussion, let's pretend they aren't. When a non-Catholic Christian clergymen uses such terms as "Christian", "church" and "clergy", do you think it proper to assume that he is talking about Catholics, the Catholic Church and the Catholic clergy respectively? On what grounds? Hesperian 05:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

According to our Catholic article, "The... Anglicans... believe that their churches are catholic in the sense that they are in continuity with the original universal church founded by the Apostles. Roman Catholics believe their church to be the only original and universal church." So you have taken the words of an Anglican, who would vehemently deny that the "original universal church" equals the Roman Catholic Church, and converted his statements about the early church into statements about the Roman Catholic Church.

Your abuse of sources just beggars belief.

Hesperian 05:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It is commonplace in the academic world for scholars of history to call members of the Roman Catholic Church "Catholics" and members of the Church of England "Anglicans". I was just following scholarly protocal which does not make theological judgments in the matter. If I had wanted to do that, I would have said he is not "catholic" with a small "c". NancyHeise ^talk 05:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever.

There is no mention of the word "Catholic" in the quotes you have given above. You, NancyHeise, have interpreted the words of an Anglican as though "Church" means "Catholic Church". Do you think this proper? Do you still think the words of Henry Chadwick have any bearing on this issue? If so, how? Hesperian 05:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't let's worry about the Anglicans now; there's enough on your plates. I rather doubt Chadwick would "vehemently deny that the "original universal church" equals the Roman Catholic Church", or at least that it did at this date. Having met him once I think he was not much of a one for vehemently denying anything. The full richness of the senses in which the CofE can consider itself both Catholic and Protestant at the same time are far from being captured in the WP passge you quote - which should not suprise us. Johnbod (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes "a scholarly ability to see all sides of a question, along with an ingrained desire not to upset his colleagues, sometimes made it hard for him to make a quick or firm decision" - I see our bio has. Johnbod (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, Chadwick doesn't support your position. In fact, not a single line you've quoted above supports your position. Just quoting a bunch of sentences that have the word "bishop" or "Rome" in them means nothing unless you understand the context. Chadwick is quite clear in his Early Church what he thinks of the traditional narrative: "No doubt Peter's presence in Rome in the sixties must indicate a concern for Gentile Christianity, but we have no information whatever about his activity or the length of his stay there. That he was in Rome for twenty-five years is third-century legend." (Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, rev. ed. (Penguin Books, 1993), p. 18.) Almost everything you cite here except for Clement is second century or later (some of it much later), and all Chadwick says about Clement (a "presiding cleric", not a bishop), is that he "remonstrated" with the Corinthians; he says nothing about any exercise of Roman authority or jurisdiction, which did not come until near the end of the second century. You are once again reading stuff from centuries later back into the first century as if it was all the same thing. It wasn't. Harmakheru (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The book you cite, Henry Chadwick's The Early Church was first published in 1986 [29]. The book I cite The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity was first published four years later in 1990 and it does not include the quote you cite, rather, Chadwick simply uses Irenaeus letter to tell the story without giving us any discussion to refute it. He presents it as a piece of the historical puzzle that tells the story - just as the Catholic Church does too. NancyHeise ^talk 05:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the book I cite is edited by John McManners. Perhaps there is good reason why Chadwick's earlier assertion is not found in this, his later work. NancyHeise ^talk 05:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Chadwick issued a revised edition of Early Church in 1993; that's the one I'm quoting from. So if you want to play the "date" game and claim Chadwick's views changed between books (which, as far as I can tell, they didn't) then my 1993 book trumps your 1990 book. You are also misrepresenting Chadwick's views on Irenaeus. The context of his use of Irenaeus with respect to the Peter-in-Rome tradition is the issue of Rome's growing influence in the second century, and the ways in which this influence was bolstered and justified. His quotation from Irenaeus is perfectly apt in that context, because Irenaeus both testifies to and enhances the growing influence of Rome by making a specific claim about the connection of Peter and Paul to the See of Rome. But nowhere does Chadwick endorse that claim; in fact, in his other writings he explicitly undermines it by stating that we have no information whatever that might confirm it. As for McManners being Chadwick's editor in the Oxford History, if you want to claim that McManners forced Chadwick to back off from his previous views about Irenaeus, then your "source" is no longer Chadwick but McManners, especially since Chadwick reiterated his previous views again three years later. Good luck trying to convince anyone to take that argument seriously. Harmakheru (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian makes a very valid point, one that I have made before and which should be borne in mind in future discussions. Professor John Vidmar is also Rev. John C. Vidmar of the Dominican Order. Whatever his academic credentials as a historian, you cannot expect him or those like him - Bokenkotter, Duffy, McGonigle, Rhodes - on whom this page relies so heavily (exclusively at many points) for its references to approach the history of their Church with an open mind.Haldraper (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Harmakheru keeps repeating irrelevant quibbles and distractions about sources. So Chadwick says he doesn't know whether Peter spent 25 years in Rome or not. Is that important? Is that relevant? Whether he stayed there 25 years or 25 months or 25 weeks makes absolutely no difference to the point in question - which is that Chadwick and other mainstream historians sees the Church as continupous from the time of Peter, and they present ample evidence to this end. The outright denial of Chadwick's words which I posted above showing that Clement did exercise authority over the Church in Corinth is breathtaking. All he is doing is making irrelevant points and mixing them with his own original research and synthesis of differing works to try to back up his own position. That is not on. Xandar 14:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"That source does not say what you are claiming it says" is an irrelevant quibble now? Hesperian 23:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I just want to respond to Harmakheru's "date game" post. Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity was reissued in 2001 [30] - minus your Early Church quote - this is the most modern piece of scholarship we have from Chadwick on this subject. NancyHeise ^talk 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, if you are really interested in having a civil conversation, you can start by ceasing your continual misrepresentations of what other people say and do. I did not offer an "outright denial of Chadwick's words" regarding Clement. In fact, I flatly endorsed them. The words you quoted from Chadwick were: "Towards the latter part of the 1st century, Rome's presiding cleric named Clement wrote on behalf of his church to remonstrate with the Corinthian Christians who had ejected clergy without either financial or charismatic endowment in favour of a fresh lot; Clement apologized not for intervening but for not having acted sooner." I replied: "Xandar, what Chadwick writes here is entirely correct as far as I know--but it does not prove the point you are trying to make. Yes, Rome intervened in a dispute at Corinth toward the end of the first century (although how much this intervention was "fraternal" and "pastoral" as opposed to "authoritative" is very much disputed)." That is not a denial of Chadwick's words--it is a denial of your (mis)interpretation of them. Yes, Clement intervened with Corinth. As Chadwick himself says, he wrote to "remonstrate" with them. But remonstration is not an exercise of "authority"--it is "fraternal correction", which any member of the faithful may offer to any other member, and any particular Church may offer to any other particular Church, without any exercise of "authority" whatever. Note also that Chadwick goes on to say on that very same page that "the earliest known example of the Roman bishop exercising jurisdiction" is not Clement's remonstration with Corinth, but Pope Victor's imposition of the Roman date for Easter upon the Churches of Asia, who were excommunicated (or at least threatened therewith) for their refusal to comply. This took place around AD 190, almost a full century after Clement's letter. So if, in Chadwick's view, the first Roman exercise of jurisdictional authority over another church took place ca. AD 190, then what Clement did cannot, in Chadwick's view, have been an exercise of jurisdictional authority, but something else. Harmakheru (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

People will note the wonderful effect of the omission of Chadwick's "known" is this last bit! What is uncontroversially "the earliest known example" becomes "in Chadwick's view, the first Roman exercise of jurisdictional authority ...." There is little point in complaining about other people's "misrepresentations" when you are indulging in this sort of thing yourself. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, are you seriously arguing that Chadwick supported one side of the argument in 1986 when he published Early Church, switched to the other side in 1990 when he submitted a chapter to the Oxford History, switched back in 1993 when he revised Early Church, and then changed his mind yet again for the reissue of Oxford History in 2001? Harmakheru (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why that quote was eliminated in the later work - that's all. Do you? NancyHeise ^talk 04:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No "quote" was "eliminated". Early Church and Oxford History are two completely different books brought out by two completely different publishers. Chadwick wrote the entirety of the first book but contributed only a chapter to the second, and as far as I can tell his portion of the second book does not contain any "quote" from the first, on this or any other subject; it is an entirely new composition. In such a situation, to describe the absence of a particular text in the second book as "eliminating" a "quote" from the first is the height of absurdity. Harmakheru (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a personal attack Harmakheru. NancyHeise ^talk 14:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Chadwick is listed as the author of Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity section called The Early Church - which is also the name of his book that you cite above. Oxford Illustrated History is the most modern piece of scholarship that we have for Chadwick and this piece of scholarship offers us his unique POV on the history of the Church - a point you dispute by citing one of his earlier works. However, the quote you cite is not to be found in his later work. I just want to be sure we are using the "most modern scholarship" for this author. I don't think anyone needs to be getting upset over this. We do have to consider that people's positions sometimes change. For instance, author Anne Rice used to be an atheist, she is now a sincere Catholic. We can't use quotes from her earlier works to decide what her positions are at present. NancyHeise ^talk 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That definitely holds true for personal statements (like those Anne Rice would make about her faith). However, I would think that a historian would make a particular note of when and why his perspective on an issue has changed. I know that in my research for Battle of the Alamo, many authors discussed why opinions of historians had changed and included documentation to justify their switch. I don't think that the absence of a specific point necessarily indicates that the author's opinion has changed (unless contradictory information is included). This is especially true when one considers that the book with the quote is a detailed look at a particular era, while the book without it is an overview of a much larger time frame. Information must be condensed from one to the other. (Please correct me if I am wrong on the characterization of these books; I have not read either one.) Karanacs (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Which traditional view?

Nancy's quote from Powell (in the section above) makes clear some more confusion here; the "traditional view" has been used for at least two different things:

1. That Jesus "founded" the Church. At base, that's not a historical question; the historical question is whether the actions in the Gospels and Acts occurred, not what they signified. It is possible (and some of the men quoted here appear to have done it) to affirm the Gathering of the Apostles, and the Holy Pun, and Pentecost, as happening literally according to scripture, and still affirm that the Church was founded after Good Friday.
2. That Peter was Bishop of Rome for twenty-five years, in the same sense that Benedict now is; this was often accompanied by the claim (which again is not a question of what happened, but of what it means) that Peter's powere were held as Bishop of Rome, rather than as chief of the Apostles.

Powell is talking about the first in part; he's not talking about the second at all. The first is not a question of evidence, but of definition; the second is what Castelot and Chadwick deny to be evidenced.

We should therefore avoid using "traditional view" without defining it; because doing so will confuse the reader as to which we mean. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be clear as to what the "traditional conception" is. The problem is that there are several elements to it and the groups that challenge these elements differ based on which one we are talking about:

1. Did Jesus intend to "found" a church in the sense of an institution? Or did he simply give instructions to his followers and they interpreted that to mean "create a church"?
2. If Jesus "founded" a church, when did he do so and how? (Gathering of the Twelve, Holy Pun, Great Commission, Pentecost, etc.)
3. Was Peter head of the early Church? In what sense? (Chief of the Apostles, monarchical and doctrinal authority?)
4. Was Peter ever in Rome?
5. Was Peter "Bishop of Rome"?
6. Did Peter consecrate Linus to be "Bishop of Rome"?
7. When did the Bishop of Rome become monarchical and exercise doctrinal authority?

All of these questions are shrouded in the mists of history but there is some documentary evidence that provide the answers that make up the "traditional conception". The traditional conception may be challengeable but it hasn't been proven false either.

Bokenkotter is the only one who can be quoted as to what "historians" believe. Houlden can be quoted wrt what "theologians" believe but not "historians". We should focus on representing what people like Bokenkotter and Houlden say about historians and theologians rather than putting forth the views of individual historians or theologians because we have no way of determining if that particular historian or theologian represents the mainstream, a substantial minority view or a fringe minority view. (Well, we have some idea but it's much harder to meet WP:RS and WP:V if we focus on the views of individual scholars.)

--Richard (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

--Richard (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard, we actually have four sources that tell us what the community of historians and theologians think.

• Duncan Derrett [31]
• Bokenkotter
• Houlden
• The new source I just posted above - the Lutheran scholar of New Testament [32]
• I was hoping an article text could be crafted from these four sources which, I think, represents a NPOV range of modern scholarship. NancyHeise ^talk 19:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

How about this for a source: A former Lutheran minister who converted to Eastern Orthodox, Yale Professor, author of 30 books, 42 honorary doctorates? etc.

“Peter had been the first bishop of Rome, and the pope was his successor. To be sure, Peter had also been in Alexandria and in Antioch, and Gregory sometimes put forth the idea that these two patriarchs shared with him the primacy given to Peter: Rome was the see where Peter had died, Alexandria the see to which he had sent Mark, and Antioch the see which he himself had occupied for seven years. There was one see of Peter in three places. But this touch of whimsy about the apostle did not have any far-reaching implications for Gregory’s concrete doctrine of primacy in the church. Everybody knew the see of Peter was Rome. When the legates at Chalcedon in 451 responded to the reading of Leo’s ‘’Tome’’ with the exclamation, “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo!” they were simply giving voice to this assumption. For the early church, primacy had belonged in a special way to Jerusalem, the mother city of all believers. But it had moved from the capital city of old Israel to the capital city of the world, which became the capital city of the new Israel.”<ref>{{Cite book | last = Pelikan | first = Jaroslav | authorlink = Jaroslav Pelikan | coauthors = | title = The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) | publisher = University Of Chicago Press | date = August 15, 1975 | location = Chicago | pages = 442 | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 978-0226653716 }}</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Searson (talk • contribs)

Read the previous two sentences: "Using the metaphor of the church as a ship ... Gregory saw the bark of Peter mentioned in Luke 5:3 as 'the church, which has been committed to Peter.' Such statements as these were not intended primarily to exalt the place of Peter among the twelve apostles of the first century, but to affirm the place of the bishop of Rome among the bishops of the sixth century." Pelikan is not stating on his own authority as a historian that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, or that the pope was his successor. He is (accurately) summarizing the arguments put forward by Pope Gregory in the sixth century to support his own authority over the other bishops of the Catholic Church. Not the same thing at all. Harmakheru (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Too funny, I guess that dumbass should have put quotes around them if he was quoting Gregory as you say.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hee! Jaroslav Pelikan is a very good source I think we should keep him. NancyHeise ^talk 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I didn't say Pelikan was "quoting" Gregory (although in fact he does quote him, complete with quotation marks, in the sentences I gave); I said he was "summarizing" Gregory's arguments, which I think is pretty clear from the tenor and construction of these paragraphs. Harmakheru (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You did in your edit summary, but I digress.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Nancy, Pelikan is a very good source--one of the best there is--but as with so many of your other "sources", he isn't saying what you think he is. Harmakheru (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike, the edit summary was, "Pope Gregory says this, not Pelikan." That is exactly correct--in fact, it is Pelikan's own point--and it does not necessarily imply direct quotation. Harmakheru (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the mainstream scholarly opinion on the question of whether Jesus "founded" the Church?

From The Church Triumphant: A History of Christianity up to 1300 by E. Glenn Hinson (Mercer University Press, 1995), p. 14:

Since the late nineteenth century scholars have debated whether Jesus should be regarded as the founder of Christianity or only as the "presupposition" for it. ... Such questions cannot be answered easily. Few scholars today would defend the view held since primitive times that Jesus founded the church essentially as it now exists save for growth and development.

The most Hinson will grant is that "it does seem important to insist that Christianity has some connections not merely with the resurrection experience but with what antedated it." Fair enough. But positing "some connections" between Jesus and Christianity is not the same thing as saying that "Jesus founded the Church"--much less that he founded the Catholic Church in particular. (Hinson, by the way, has a doctorate from Oxford and also studied at the Gregorianum in Rome and The Ecumenical Institute for Advanced Studies in Jerusalem.) What is particularly interesting about Hinson is that his scholarly objectivity is affirmed by none other than Thomas Noble, one of Nancy's favorite authorities. In a review of the book from which the above quotation was taken, Noble writes:

This is a good and ambitious book. ... It is good because it is wonderfully fair-minded. Hinson has no axe to grind." (Church History, vol. 66, no. 2 (June 1997), pp. 335-336.)

This comes pretty darn close to being "encyclopedic": Hinson, a Protestant with excellent credentials, states unequivocally that "few scholars today" would defend the traditional view ("held since primitive times"), and Noble, a Catholic scholar with excellent credentials, declares that the book in which Hinson says this is "wonderfully fair-minded". If Xandar and Nancy are really intent on including a statement of the relative balance of scholarly opinion on the subject, there it is. Harmakheru (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are again over-stating your case. Hinson actually states: "Few scholars today would defend the view held since primitive times that Jesus founded the church essentially as it now exists save for growth and development." He is not denying that Jesus founded the Church, still less that Peter and Paul founded the Church, but that Jesus founded the Church "essentially as it now exists." Something very different. Xandar 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If Jesus did not found the Church "essentially as it now exists", then he must have founded something "essentially different" from what now exists--if he intended to found anything at all, which is also very much disputed. And if, at best, what he founded, or intended to found, was something essentially different from what now exists, how can the Catholic Church of today be considered to be "continuous" with it in any meaningful sense? Harmakheru (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see my post in this section [33] regarding this topic. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 14:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

more sources

I dont think that Septentrionalis is helping us come to agreement by inserting the above, off topic analysis. We are just trying to tell Reader:

• 1)What the Church position is regarding its own origins - we already have this cited to the Catechism and another book approved for Catechesis by the USCCB One Faith, One Lord. This should not be a point of dispute.
• 2)What are the various views held by historians and theologians regarding Catholic Church origins.
• We have already posted many sources on this page that say various things about this topic. Many scholars hold a view that says the present system of bishop priest and deacon was one that evolved, it was not given to us by Jesus instantaneously upon his founding of the Church as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew. John Vidmar's quotes [34] and Derrett, who gives us an overall view of the fact that some scholars agree and some disagree that he founded the "church", give us facts that I think are important to include in the article if we are going to show "both sides" of the scholarly debate and meet WP:NPOV.
• I am offering some more sources here on the topic:
• Here's Bokenkotter's endorsement of the Gospels as valid historical documents - an endorsement he qualifies somewhat - see these:
• p. 8 "When we come to the so-called public life of Jesus, which begins with his baptism by John at the River Jordan, we must admit that we do not have the kind of biographical details that readers look for today, such as (lists details). But there is no need for skepticism. More than a century of rigorous critical analysis of the New Testament has in no way disproven the constant belief of Christians that their Scriptures are based on the actual words and deeds of a unique historical personage."
• p. 8 qualification statement "The Gospels, as we've said, constitute-practically speaking- our only source of historical facts about Jesus, and they were written from forty to seventy years after his death. Their authors drew on an oral tradition that disseminated stories about the deeds and words of Jesus in the form of sermons and catechetical and liturgical material."
• Here's some more John Vidmar:
• From The Catholic Church Through the Ages page 1 "Two things are very important to remember about the early Christian Church: a) it did not suddenly appear out of nowhere and b) it was not given to the world whole and entire." NancyHeise ^talk 13:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• What are the various views held by historians and theologians regarding Catholic Church origins. This would be nice, but is not essential, especially in the lead. More seriously, this is precisely what the present text (like the alternatives so far proposed) fails to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a work in progress, I have supplied and continue to supply sources. Harmakheru kindly has supplied sources as well. We are all working together on an agreed text. I intend to help with sources some more after we get through the holiday weekend. I have a library that has a very good section on the Church but I can't get to it until next week. It also has a nice selection of tertiary sources that may help us come up with an encyclopedic wording. NancyHeise ^talk 14:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources which are used for text they do not support are worse than useless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Another attempt

Starting from Richard's latest version of the origins paragraph, I would put this forward as a passage that gives appropriate weight to all sides of the issue:

The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community originally founded by Jesus upon the apostles,[20] among whom Simon Peter held the position of leader.[21] The Church also believes that its bishops, through apostolic succession, are consecrated successors of these apostles,[22][23] and that the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of Peter, possesses a universal primacy of jurisdiction and pastoral care.[24] Since elements of the this traditional narrative are based on fragmentary historical evidence, [26] modern scholars differ widely in their views. Some scholars accept assert that the historical evidence indicates that the Catholic Church is the direct continuance of directly continuous with the original 1st century church of the Apostles Peter and Paul. who were martyred in Rome. Others disagree, arguing that systems and structures that developed significantly later are imposed by the traditional narrative upon the primitive church.

Xandar 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

1. This does not specify what "traditional narrative" is in view, and we can't expect the reader to fill that in. Changing it to "... elements of this traditional narrative ..." would fix that.

   Done. (Xandar)

2. It is not just "elements" of the traditional narrative that are based on "fragmentary historical evidence"; virtually the entire traditional narrative is.

   "Much" could possibly replace "elements". (Xandar)

   Unless Xandar means the Gospels as traditional narrative. Does he? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

   No.

3. "Fragmentary historical evidence" is either redundant or tendentious. "Fragmentary evidence" would suffice.

   I think we need to emphasize we are talking about history. (Xandar)

4. Modern scholars do not just "differ" in their views; they "differ widely".

   Done. (Xandar)

5. "Some scholars accept that" leaves the impression that what follows is fact, but only "some scholars" accept it. Better: "Some scholars believe", which is much closer to the truth.

   assert also works. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

   No problems with "assert". (Xandar)

6. "the" direct continuance has the same problems as before. "a" would be better; even better would be to simply say "directly continuous with", thereby avoiding the problem entirely.

   Done. (Xandar)

7. "the original first century church of the Apostles Peter and Paul" implies that such a church clearly existed, was clearly the "original" church, and in some sense belonged to Peter and Paul, all of which begs the question being addressed. Better: "directly continuous with a first-century Church in Rome at the time of the Apostles Peter and Paul, who were martyred there."

   Perhaps .. "directly continuous with the first-century Church in Rome at the time of the Apostles Peter and Paul, who were martyred there." (Xandar)

8. "Some others disagree" does not do justice to the evidence. More accurately: "Most scholars today disagree with this traditional narrative, arguing that ..." Harmakheru (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

   I don't think there is evidence for that assertion. (Xandar)

9. The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community originally founded by Jesus upon the apostles, Citation, please.
   • The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the original Christian community; the Church believes that Peter led the apostles. would be easily sourced from the Catechism.

There shouldn't be a problem sourcing the first claim. (Xandar)

Show me; we can discuss hypothetical sources when they instantiate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

1. • Since we have a sourced claim that some Roman Catholic theologians deny that Jesus formed anything (as opposed to inspiring Christianity), Xandar's version seems partisan even within the communion of Rome.

   If we get into what certain radical "Roman Catholic theologians" say, we could start challenging anything about Christianity or the existence of God. And of course there are non Roman Catholic theologians who back the essentials of the Catholic view. (Xandar)

2. Some scholars accept that the historical evidence indicates that the Catholic Church is the direct continuance of the original 1st century church of the Apostles Peter and Paul, who were martyred in Rome.
   • The English here is continuation. Elegant variation is a vice.

See above. (Xandar)

1. • Who? You have yet to supply one.

• Since elements of the traditional narrative are based on fragmentary historical evidence, would be better placed after indicating what the traditional narrative is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought we'd just dealt with that one? Xandar 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

1. If we change "Some others" to just "Others" in the last sentence, we eliminate the disputed quantification and have a sentence which is, I think, inarguably correct as far as it goes. This is sufficient for the lead; any other thrashing out or qualification that needs to be done can be handled at greater length under the "Origin" section.

   I have done this (Xandar)

2. "the traditional narrative imposes systems and structures that developed significantly later onto the primitive church" is hard to parse the first time through. I would suggest: "systems and structures that developed significantly later are imposed by the traditional narrative upon the primitive church". Or something like that.

   No problem with that. (Xandar)

3. I would also suggest, just as a matter of style, that we remove the second "that" in the next-to-last sentence (between "indicates" and "the Catholic Church"), but this is just personal preference.

   I tend to prefer the "that". Comments? (Xandar)

4. Finally, I would suggest (but not insist) that instead of merely "assert" we say "continue to assert", since this serves to emphasize the continuity between the traditional narrative and the position held by those who support it today, as opposed to the discontinuity implicit in challenging it. Harmakheru (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

   We have to be careful not to make the paragraph too long for the lead. I think its already at the limits. (Xandar)

1st century church of the Apostles Peter and Paul, who were martyred in Rome is redundant; "Peter and Paul" add nothing to first-century; no-one suggests they survived 100 AD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed "who were martyred in Rome", in the interest of brevity, but I think mentioning P and P here is important. Xandar 23:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? Let's make sure we are discussing the same questions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, the last two sentences are not a dichotomy; like the British Constitution, an institution can be directly continuous and develop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that someone still knows what "beg the question" means. Peter jackson (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Counterproposal

The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the original apostolic Christian community, led by Simon Peter. The Church also believes that its bishops, through apostolic succession, are consecrated successors of these apostles, and that the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of Peter, possesses a universal primacy of jurisdiction and pastoral care.

If more is necessary:

There are various traditional narratives which make more specific claims: one holds that Saint Peter was himself Bishop of Rome for twenty-five years, dying in the Neronian Persecution. Elements of this traditional narrative are based on fragmentary historical evidence; scholars differ on how much of it they accept.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) 00:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Full definition?

The Catholic Church in general means both the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches, since all these churches are in full communion with each other. "Catholic" is not truly meant to be a synonym with "Roman Catholic" because it then excludes the Eastern Catholic churches, of which make up 15% of Catholics. The Roman Catholic Church uses the Latin Rite while the various Eastern Catholic Churches (including various Greek Catholic Churches) use the Byzantine Rite. So the Vatican shouldn't just be the headquarters of Roman Catholicism, but of all Catholicism in general, right? That's why I always use "Roman Catholic" instead of just "Catholic" when talking about my faith. If I'm wrong, please clarify this for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Orgoglio (talk • contribs) 00:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The term Roman Catholic can mean Latin Catholic as you say, but it can also mean just Catholic. Peter jackson (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Formating references

Before the next FA review, the references need to set out inline with the {{harvnb}} tool (when this is used, it highlights the specific reference in the bibliography if you click on it). For instance how its used on the England article. This is somewhat of a daunting task, considering how many is in this article. Also some of the references have expanded text and quotes in them. Should I use the notation tool for these or just cut them? - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Has WP:WIAFA changed again? It has never required a specific format for notes, and WP:FOOTNOTES has expressly said that several forms are acceptable.

What it does require is some form of in-line citation, so that the support for any specific assertion is clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As an FAC delegate, I can assure you that no particular citation style is required at FAC. It only requires that the citations be consistent within the article. Karanacs (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

discussion on recent edits by Haldraper

This edit [35] adds too detailed information from a website called Nationmaster.com. I do not agree with this edit that was made by Haldraper. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 17:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 17:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the phrasing goes well beyond what the ref says, which is itself pretty uncontroversial. A closer version of the ref's point could be added to History of the Catholic Church, ideally with a better quality source. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, entirely uncontroversial; this may be in Mommsen, and is certainly findable in Bury. Reverting the text, as opposed to tagging for a better source, was uncalled for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It has not been reverted. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the information is useful; I've said for some time that the history section essentially ignores the political impact of the RCC. This is a good start, but it would need to be sourced much better. Karanacs (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask for a decent source to be used before actual changes are made to the article? Also, no one has reverted Haldraper as is being alleged here - neither has his edit been tagged. However, I would support reverting his text until a source meeting WP:reliable source examples is used and some discussion on wording is allowed. NancyHeise ^talk 21:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually. Sources are required for text which is challenged, or likely to be challenged; this is a non-controversial claim about late antiquity, well-known to all students of the period.

The helpful course is to go look it up. If you find, as you will, a source that agrees, then substitute the better source; if you found a source that disagreed, you would have grounds to modify, to convey what the balance of sources say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I did actually edit out this addition once. But it seems to have been sneaked back in again. The addition is factually wrong and seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the source. It reads " By the end of the fourth century, the Church had begun to fuse with, replicate or replace the structures of the late Roman Empire." This is untrue. The end of the fourth century is 360-400 AD when there is zero evidence of this (despite what appears in the the historically hilarious recent film "King Arthur"). The source used actually states:

"In the later organization of the Roman Empire, the increasingly subdivided provinces were administratively associated in a larger unit, the diocese. (Latin dioecesis, from a Greek term meaning "administration"). The Catholic Church directly inherited this Roman structure of authority during the 5th and 6th centuries, as each bishop fully assumed the role of the former Roman praefectus. The transfer was facilitated by the Christian practice of setting the areas of ecclesiastical administration very exactly coinciding with those of the civil administration:"

This is something quite different. First, we are talking about a civil "diocese" or district. Second we have Catholic dioceses organised on the boundaries of the Roman civil dioceses. This still exists today. Many bishropics cover the same territory as civil districts. That doesn't mean they have replaced the districts, or that the Bishop of Carlisle has fused with or replaced the city government of Carlisle. What the article quoted from actually says is that gradually, over the 5th and 6th centuries, bishops "assumed the role" of the Roman prefect. So 1) This was 200 years LATER than quoted in the article (400 - 600 AD) - which is very important. 2) This happened ONLY where the Roman empire had already broken down following barbarian invasions, and no replacement authority had been set up. So this was temporary, over limited areas, and AFTER the fall of Rome, so there was no "fusing". It certainly didn't happen anywhere the Roman Empire retained authority - as in the Eastern Empire and southern Italy. Even in Ravenna the imperial Exarch was always in control. SO i have again removed the offending misinformation. If someone wants to formulate a more accurate and referenced sentence or two on this, they are welcome to set it out for comment. Xandar 01:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I didn't summarise the ref at all well and we do need a more academic source for it. I also take your point about 'replacing' being more accurate than 'fusing': what I really find interesting and would like to see in the article is how the boundaries of modern Catholic dioceses reflect late Roman imperial ones.Haldraper (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This would be for History of the Catholic Church, or diocese maybe. Anyway, the boundaries of modern Catholic dioceses don't especially reflect late Roman imperial ones. I don't know of any case where they cross modern national borders in Europe, other than the Northern Irish border to a limited extent, and they have often been re-arranged. For example the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Luxembourg was established (in a fairly leisurely manner) to reflect the Treaty of London (1839) which confirmed Luxembourg's independence. It's true the provinces of the Church are conservative; they ignored the political unions of England with Scotland and Ireland, probably wisely. Johnbod (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ecclestiastical dioceses are subdivisions of a different order than the Roman diocese; the ;atter is a wide expanse, the former a single civitas. For example, all Gallia was one diocese to the Romans, but France, c. 1788, was more than a hundred dioceses (despite occupying slightly less area. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Exarch of Ravenna remained in control until its fall in 751, after which the Emperor wrote to the Pope placing him in charge of imperial territory in Italy. Would it be surprising if similar things happened on a smaller scale in various localities? But one mustn't overgeneralize either way. Peter jackson (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it could also help to mention that this organizational stucture helped make the Church the oldest institution in the world? I have a ref for that but I have to go looking. NancyHeise ^talk 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, I have a ref for you. Thomas Noble, Western Civilization says on page 213 "By the late fourth century, the bishops in the major cities of the empire were called metropolitan bishops, or sometimes archbishops, and they had responsibility for territories often called dioceses. In essence, the church was adapting to its own purposes the administrative geography of the Roman Empire." I have not put this into the article but someone else can certainly do this if they like. NancyHeise ^talk 15:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Noble continues to discuss this issue on page 213 -214. Here's the quote "From its earliest days the Christian community had espoused the doctrine of apostolic succession. In other words, just as Jesus had charged his apostles with continuing his earthly ministry, that ministry was passed on to succeeding generations of Christian bishops and priests through the ceremony of ordination. When one or more bishops laid their hands on the head of a new priest or bishop, they were continuing an unbroken line of clerics that reached back through the apostles to Jesus himself. The bishops of Rome coupled this general notion of apostolic succession with a particular emphasis on the original primacy of Peter, in tradition the leader of the apostles and the first bishop of Rome. The theory of "Petrine Primacy" was based on Matthew's Gospel(16:16-18), where Jesus founded his church on Peter, "the Rock", and conferred upon him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The theory held that just as Peter had been leader of the apostles, so the successors to Peter, the bishops of Rome, continued to be the leaders of the church as a whole. By the late fourth century the bishop of Rome was usually addressed as papa, or "pope" in English. The steadily growing importance of bishops everywhere as a marked feature of the age, and the growing authority of the bishop of Rome within the church is the most striking organizational process of the fourth and fifth centuries." NancyHeise ^talk 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

PMAnderson just made an edit referencing Nationmaster.com. Sorry for my tardiness in pointing this out but encyclopedia articles on Nationmaster.com come from Wikipedia and so Nationmaster.com's encyclopedia articles are not reliable sources. I don't have any problem with the content of PMAnderson's edit, only with the sourcing. Presumably it should be possible to find sources for the material that comes from the Wikipedia article on Diocese. --Richard S (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It is? I was merely restoring a basically sound sentence; feel free to take out the footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I'm not sure whether you really want to go along this road. Some historians probably say that the Pope became head of the church because Rome was the capital of the Empire, not because of Peter (after all, what ever happened to the other 11 apostolic sees?). Peter jackson (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter, if you can find a ref that says that, I would be interested to see it. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 03:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, thanks for pointing me to the ref, I'll put it in.

Peter, you make a very good point. It makes much more sense to see the Pope as a successor to the Roman emperors rather than Peter: all the emperors in their capacity as 'pontifex maximus' were chief priest of Rome.Haldraper (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have taken this out again: [36]. It is still saying something different from the reference, and the areas of the "late Roman Empire" where the Western church at any point "replaced" the Imperial structures are AFAIK limited to a very shaky control over parts of Italy and maybe patches of Gaul and Germany, probably limited to such urban settlements as there were. There is nothing in the long quoted ref to tell me differently anyway. We have very tight pressure on space in this article, & this point should be made in one of the "main articles" before it is added here. But first it should be worked out whether it is about the church taking control of secular government (as the text suggests) or using political boundaries to define its own religious ones (as the ref describes) - or both. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

more undiscussed changes

A new editor has changed the wording we have been working on all this time in Origin and Mission. I reverted his edit because of his lack of discussion first and because the changes did not improve the section. He wanted to specify the religion of historians that agree with Catholic Church POV on its own origins. He did not provide a source that explains to us what is the religion of all historians who hold this view and I find it unlikely that he will find one. Duffy is Catholic and he is presented as something other. Here's my reversion edit. [37] NancyHeise ^talk 15:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Was it necessary to do a full revert? I agree that without sourcing we should not include information about the religion of the historians (and I think it unlikely that we will find a source to support that), but other pieces of the edit were not awful. For example, I don't see an issue with listing Derrett in addition to Duffy. Karanacs (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you supporting random, undiscussed, unsourced edits to the article that are made to sections that many editors are working on, providing sources for and actively engaging in consensus building on the talk page? I'm looking at Derrett and can not see how we can place this ref in the same sentence as Duffy as it is presently worded. I think this issue needs discussion first. NancyHeise ^talk 15:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that all changes must be discussed at the talk page initially (per WP:BRD), although it is best for controversial changes to be discussed before they are made. It is also unlikely that new users will be aware that there is any discussion ongoing, and their uninvolved perspective can be useful. Why would simple changes, like adding the name of a scholar already used as a source in the article, be controversial and need to be discussed first? Derrett's information is already in the article, adding a source in the appropriate spot would be trivial. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the demand that all changes be discussed at the talk page first is contrary to clear policy and disruptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly the former. However in an article like this it can be practical, and save reversions. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary could have referred to the talk page, but I think wholesale reversion is justified in an article like this. J Duncan M Derrett is a Professor of International Law, with a specialism in religious (Hindu etc) law, & no kind of historian, so not a very helpful authority on these points. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize Derrett's (lack of) qualifications. I thought he had already been used in the article. Thanks for clarifying. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I alerted the editor immmediately after I made the change - I invited him to come to this talk page and join the ongoing discussion of these sections. His addition of Derrett to the Duffy sentence was not supported by Derrett's quote in the actual reference. If this editors wants to use Derrett in that sentence, he needs a new ref. I am not sure that Derrett says what this editor claims he says, at least it is not in the referenced quote that he used to support his change. That is why I think that discussion is warranted before making this change. NancyHeise ^talk 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I also can't work out from his last version who/what/where his references "Haase" and "SandSp6" were. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

They're not his references. They were in the article before his edits. "Haase" is the name given to the Derrett reference. I don't know what the SandSp6 reference is. --Richard S (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

S&S is probably Eamon Duffy's book. Gimmetrow 12:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the trouble with these pesky ref names imo. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

While Duffy has his POV and I respect him very much for his scholarship is it appropriate for the article? The article is about how the Catholic Church understands its origin and purpose. Duffy's view and others who believe that Peter was not head of the Church should be in the controversy section. I think it best to simply state what the Church itself says about itself and the papacy.97.112.215.70 (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It is only appropriate if we are discussing what historians say on the matter. Duffy is one (and he cites the numerous, more academic, historians, whom he follows). We can indeed leave him, and the entire subject, out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to support the assertion that this article or, specifically the section titled "Origin and mission" must be limited solely to "how the Catholic Church understands its origin and purpose". Certainly the Church's view of how it began should be presented. However, to argue that we should present only that would be analogous to presenting the LDS Church's "sacred history" of Joseph Smith, the golden plates and the entire Book of Mormon as historical fact. Perhaps this is a stretch but, after all, we don't have the golden plates and, AFAIK, we don't have the original documents written by Irenaeus, Ignatius of Antioch et al. If the Church (Catholic or LDS) wishes to assert something as being historical, then that assertion is open to challenge by historians. --Richard S (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Anon 97, I don't think any editor is attempting to limit the beliefs of the Catholic Church or misrepresent its doctrine. In fact, I think you will find that all editors feel that the CC and her teachings are the first focus of the article. The problem is when beliefs are presented as historical fact. To present historical facts demands reliable sources. One of the problems for the Catholic Church, as well as many other religions, is that the historical evidence is lacking. In the case of the Catholic Church, the historical evidence between the Crucifixion of Jesus and the first Council of Nicea in 325 is lacking. This only means the topic remains one of faith; experts are unable, based solely on historical facts, to prove what Tradition or sacred history states. Does that make sense to you? -^StormRider 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by saying there's no evidence before Nicaea. Do you perhaps mean no external evidence, i.e. in non-Christian sources? I don't think historians would say that only external evidence can be considered, though they'd certainly apply different criteria of assessment. Or do you mean there are no surviving manuscripts from before then? Again, I don't think historians would accept that as a valid criticism. Textual criticism is all about reconstructing texts older than the manuscripts. As far as I know, there's no dispute about the authenticity of the relevant writings ascribed to Ignatius & Irenaeus, though I'm open to correction on that. The question is one of interpretation. 1 Clement is a slightly different case. My understanding is that it's accepted by most scholars as a genuine letter from Rome to Corinth written about 96, but Clement's authorship is disputed. Peter jackson (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignatius and Irenaeus offer very little evidence, however; the argument is over the interpretation of about a sentence each. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added some more sources that cite their statements on the Church origins and offices of bishops to original documents. See these [38]. Earlier on this page I cited Bokenkotter, Thomas Noble, John Vidmar and Henry Chadwick's statements on church origins, Peter's papacy and episcopal offices. I have added these new sources to supplement these others. NancyHeise ^talk 02:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I also want to add that the August Franzen book has a whole chapter listing the original documents used by historians with regard to the Early Church. They are not so scant - there are actually many sources and he lists them all and discusses some of these - offering his interpretations of them. Clements letter is cited by this author as the "first most precisely datable work of Christian literature outside of the New Testament. It was written in Rome around the year 96 ...." NancyHeise ^talk 03:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the same claim. No honest editor would confuse them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oblates

Just a minor note. Oblates are not exactly the same as a third order. Third orders have their own rule. Oblates of St. Benedict follow the rule of Benedict. There is no separate rule just for oblates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.215.70 (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Xandar's proposal

The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community originally founded by Jesus upon the apostles,[20] among whom Simon Peter held the position of leader.[21] The Church also believes that its bishops, through apostolic succession, are consecrated successors of these apostles,[22][23] and that the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of Peter, possesses a universal primacy of jurisdiction and pastoral care.[24] Since elements of the this traditional narrative are based on fragmentary historical evidence, [26] modern scholars differ widely in their views. Some scholars accept assert that the historical evidence indicates that the Catholic Church is the direct continuance of directly continuous with the original 1st century church of the Apostles Peter and Paul. who were martyred in Rome. Others disagree, arguing that systems and structures that developed significantly later are imposed by the traditional narrative upon the primitive church.

Right I have amended my proposal for the Lead paragraph on this issue, above, in the light of recent comments. Have we got something that we are moving to agreement on? Xandar 23:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

PMAnderson's counterproposal

The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the original apostolic Christian community, led by Simon Peter. The Church also believes that its bishops, through apostolic succession, are consecrated successors of these apostles, and that the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of Peter, possesses a universal primacy of jurisdiction and pastoral care.

If more is necessary:

There are various traditional narratives which make more specific claims: one holds that Saint Peter was himself Bishop of Rome for twenty-five years, dying in the Neronian Persecution. Elements of this these traditional narratives are based on fragmentary historical evidence; scholars differ on how much of them they accept.

[added as the result of discussion 14:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC) :

There is also a theological issue: was Christianity founded by Jesus, or was it inspired by Jesus, and founded by the Apostles after the Crucifixion? This is not primarily a question of whether the events asserted by the New Testament happened, but the definitional question: which of them comprise the setting up of a new organization?

I think this off topic myself, but certain comments below seem to want something on the subject. This is (again) not a historical question; historians, as such, cannot really say much about it; and the papagraph above is what the sources seem to be saying on the matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)]

See #counterproposal. Xandar's edit removes some of the infelicities, but does not address the real problems. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The counterproposal (both parts) would be fine with me. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I can live with either one, but I must admit I am partial to the first version, and I think we are closer to "consensus" on that one than we might be on the counterproposal. I do like the part in the counterproposal about scholars differing "on how much of it they accept". That fixes a gap in the first proposal by specifying more clearly what it is that scholars disagree on; so I would suggest changing the third sentence to read: "Since elements of this traditional narrative are based on fragmentary historical evidence, [26] modern scholars differ widely on how much of it they accept." I am reluctant to go into any more detail than that (such as dragging in the alleged 25-year papal reign). If it is necessary to be that specific, I would prefer to deal with it in further down, and not in the lead. Harmakheru (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I too, favor the first proposal over the counter proposal. Johnbod, do you have any specific objections about the first that you can share with us? NancyHeise ^talk 01:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer PMAnderson's counterproposal. One picky point: the counterproposal asserts that "there are various traditional narratives" but then shift to talking about "elements of this traditional narrative" and "scholars differ on how much of it they accept". Either there is only one traditional narrative or there are several. Let's be consistent. This suggests something like "scholars differ on which elements of these narratives they accept as historical".

I think PMAnderson raised an important point which I didn't respond to earlier due to real-life responsibilities. Xandar keeps beating on "continuity". Unless we posit (as some fringe theories and religions do) that the Christianity of Jesus got lost and modern Christianity was invented by either Peter, Paul or Constantine, continuity is not the issue here. Several patriarchies claimed apostolic succession and it is more or less mainstream to accept at least some sort of continuity (even if not strict apostolic succession via laying on of the hands) between the apostolic era and the Church institutionalized as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Now, there are those who argue that Jesus never intended to found a church. My favorite one was the perspective that says "Jesus sought to bring the Kingdom of God to earth. The Church was what God created in response." Unfortunately, I forget who said it.

Now, unless we're someone here is going to argue that Jesus didn't intend to found a church or that his Christianity got superseded by the Church of Rome, we're not focused on continuity. we need not continue to argue about continuity since that is not being challenged.

What I think we're discussing is whether the specific acts in the traditional narrative (Peter in Rome, Peter as Bishop of Rome, Peter consecrating Linus) are historical.

I think the counterproposal still doesn't make this distinction clear which is part of why Xandar has problems with other people's proposals. If they don't assert continuity from Jesus to the Apostles to the Christianity of the Roman Empire, he has a major problem. And I think it's reasonable. We have been, as PMAnderson has asserted, confusing that continuity with the specific chain of events that is claimed by the traditional narrative to be proof of the continuity. Xandar seems to be willing to allow the second issue ("the specific chain of events") to be challenged but not the first ("the fact of continuity from Jesus to the Apostles to the Christianity of the Roman Empire").

I hope I have captured everybody's positions accurately. If not, I'm sure you will let me know.

--Richard (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a technicality here. I don't think "alleged 25-year papal reign" is conceptually correct. The Catholic view must be that Peter was "Pope", i.e. head of the Church, from 30/33, but the tradition is that he became Bishop of Rome only later. Peter jackson (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the tradition is that Peter was actually bishop of Rome for twenty-five years, most likely from AD 42 to AD 67. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Peter [39] talks about this at some length (and rejects it as historically unsupported). Harmakheru (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said. Peter jackson (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I misunderstood which way your objection was pointed. Harmakheru (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Richard: Continuity is the key matter which is of concern to us with relevance to the Historic Origin of the Church. That's why it is being emphasized. Xandar 23:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Who's this we"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I can live with either. In fact on reflection I would rather the words both use: "are based on fragmentary historical evidence" were "agree with the fragmentary surviving historical evidence" - which seems more accurate. We don't know what historical evidence was available during the early formation of traditional narrative(s). Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Either the proposal or the counterproposal is OK with me. Majoreditor (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod, I like your suggestion "agree with the fragmentary surviving historical evidence" too. This appears to be what the historians have cited in their discussions covering the scholarly debate. NancyHeise ^talk 16:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they have suggested somewhat more; there is a reasonable theory that the traditional account of the Bishops of Rome is based on no more than what now survives; that the list for the first century contains exactly those names which are connected prominently with Rome in the present fragments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, but there are I imagine other "reasonable theor[ies]" on the matter, & with the very limited space available here I prefer my more limited phrasing, which sticks to the evidence, rather than theories we don't have space to cover. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

Now this, from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1904, is a testimony against interest; were there a case to defend any more of the tradition than that Peter was martyred at Rome (especially when it is so favorable to the Vatican), CE would make it. But they don't; so there isn't one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really; the CE text no doubt assumes a succession of Bishops starting with Peter, as well as his "Apostolic Primacy". As I think you say above, there is more than one indivisible tradition. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If they had assumed a succession of Bishops starting with Peter, wouldn't they have said Peter died as Bishop of Rome? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This is getting silly. As habitués of this page ought to know better than most, there are an almost infinite number of ways of phrasing almost anything. Are we really discussing, as relevant to the wording to be used in this article, hypothetical choices of words not actually used by the CE of 1904, which as you & many others have repeatedly said, is not an RS anyway? Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So the CE's argument appears to go like this: Peter was a Bishop (according to Xandar's argument, it doesn't matter if he was never referred to as such, he was a bishop by dint of being one of the Twelve), Peter died in Rome thus making Rome the last See that Peter was bishop of and therefore all subsequent Bishops of Rome have a claim to the Primacy of Simon Peter. Other details of the "traditional narrative" are "uncertain" according to the CE. So... let's present that. It is a minimalist "theory" which I think most historians are willing to accept. At this point, the only argument that I can see against this view of continuity would be an argument that attacks the historicity of the List of Popes which starts with Irenaeus' original list from Peter to Linus to Anacletus. Any know of a reliable source who makes this argument? --Richard S (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And, btw, I think it's fruitless to argue whether Peter, Linus and Anacletus were bishops or "Popes". The point of the quote "historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first Pope" suggests that the line of succession was established retrospectively. It's even possible (IMHO) that Peter, Linus and Anacletus may not have been "monarchical bishops" with a territorially-defined episcopate. It would be enough for them to have been consecrated as bishops. Bishops seem to have become monarchical with territorially-defined episcopates at a later point in time. --Richard S (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

All that just takes us back into the mire, & we don't need it anyway. I doubt anyone really thinks Peter, Linus and Anacletus were ""monarchical bishops" with a territorially-defined episcopate" or has for a very long time. The issues are: were they recognised as having a distinct individual position locally, and was the person in that position (if any) in Rome recognised as distinct by other groups. And the historical answer for the early period is that we don't know. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Noble's book Western Civilization says of Peter's bishopric that it is based on a "reliable tradition" if that helps. NancyHeise ^talk 22:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be going off on fruitless tangets again folks. We're discussing the wording for the section of the Lead, and whether we include Johnbod's amendment, which i think is okay. Xandar 01:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. Let's restate it, taking Zandar's text as amended above, which got more preferences, with my "agree with the" for "are based on" rephrasing:

LATEST DRAFT The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community originally founded by Jesus upon the apostles,[20] among whom Simon Peter held the position of leader.[21] The Church also believes that its bishops, through apostolic succession, are consecrated successors of these apostles,[22][23] and that the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of Peter, possesses a universal primacy of jurisdiction and pastoral care.[24] Since Elements of the this traditional narrative agree with the fragmentary historical evidence, [26] however modern scholars differ widely in their views. Some scholars accept assert that the historical evidence indicates that the Catholic Church is the direct continuance of directly continuous with the original 1st century church of the Apostles Peter and Paul. who were martyred in Rome. Others disagree, arguing that systems and structures that developed significantly later are imposed by the traditional narrative upon the primitive church.

Who is, or is not, ready to accept with that? Nancy, Xandar & myself are ok with it, per above. Harmakheru & Majoreditor were ok with Xandar's draft but have not commented on my bit. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have two problems with the proposed text, mostly stylistic in nature:

a) "traditional narrative" is a phrase I used when we were describing a story (the one that starts with Peter traveling to Rome, has him founding a church there, serving as its bishop, consecrating Linus and finally being martyred there). With the current text, Bokenkotter's phrase "traditional conception" is more appropriate. As I said, this is stylistic.

b) The sentence "Since elements of the this traditional narrative agree with the fragmentary historical evidence, [26] modern scholars differ widely in their views." is awkwardly phrased. I would prefer to say "Since there is only fragmentary historical evidence which supports various elements of this traditional conception, modern scholars differ...". The current sentence doesn't scan... why does the fact that "elements of the traditional narrative agree with fragmentary historical evidence" cause "modern scholars [to] differ"? If anything, one might think that the agreement with the historical evidence would cause scholars to support the "traditional narrative".

--Richard S (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard's version of the sentence in question is also rather awkward, and over-lengthy for the lead. Perhaps a more natural version of the sentence could be: "Elements of the this traditional narrative agree with the fragmentary historical evidence that exists, [26] however modern scholars differ widely in their views." I'm not sure about "traditional conception". I don't see it as a great improvement on "traditional narrative", which I admit is not perfect. Xandar 01:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Some further thoughts...

a) I like replacing the "since" with "however". It makes the logic work which is what I was concerned with.

b) Still, I think the issue is not so much that "elements of the traditional narrative agree with..." as "The elements of the traditional narrative are based on various historical documents". I'm uncomfortable with using "agree" in this context. "based on" seems more natural here and more to the point.

c) I think we should consider the following continuation: "however, modern scholars differ widely regarding the credibility of the facts presented in these documents." (or, if you prefer, "of the traditional narrative") On further reflection, I find that the phrase "fragmentary historical evidence" is unsatisfactory because the historical evidence isn't really "fragmentary" in the sense of having only fragments of documents. What we have is a bunch of documents, none of which tell the entire "traditional narrative". However, if you take all the historical documents together and accept them at face value, you wind up with something very close to the "traditional narrative". It is only when you start challenging the documents themselves or "reading between the lines", that the "traditional narrative" loses credibility. That is what "some modern scholars" do and that is what we should be trying to communicate. --Richard S (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On a) I agree "since" should go, & Zandar's "however" version is fine. b) "Based on" is a larger claim we don't justify, and shouldn't attempt to here. Only a few elements of the tradition agree with anything we can regard as historical evidence ("documents" is perhaps best avoided here - obviously there are only copies of copies from centuries later), and we have little or no idea on what evidence was available during the formation of the traditional narrative for it to be based on, or really when or how that formation occurred. I don't think "However, if you take all the historical documents together and accept them at face value, you wind up with something very close to the "traditional narrative"" would get consensus agreement here at all, though I suppose it all depends on defining the various terms. I'm trying to find a lowest common denominator we can all agree on, & I think b & c take us away from that. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. "based on" implies that the traditional narrative is based upon the documents and evidence that survives, when in actual fact the traditional narrative is something passed down through the Church independently of these documents, and, the Church would say, is the direct teaching of the Apostles. As far as c) goes, it is not just documents, but archaeological evidence that backs up elements of the traditional narrative. And I'm not sure liberal scholars are so much saying the evidence is fraudulent, as that they have a different interpretation of the conclusions that can be drawn from what exists. Such arguments are anyway, IMO, better suited for the main text than the Lead. Xandar 01:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can concede that we need not go into too much detail in the lead and so I will yield on points (b) and (c). However, Xandar's latest proposal which reads "however modern scholars differ widely in their views" seems too vague to me. How about "however modern scholars have differing opinions (or views) as to the extent to which the historical evidence supports the traditional narrative"? I just want to clarify to the reader what "views" we are talking about. --Richard S (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is ok, as the next sentence goes into more detail on the "differing opinions". Plus various people have agreed that above. There is a "this the" redundancy just before that btw; I think "this" is preferable but will go with either. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod wrote "the next sentence goes into more detail on the differing opinions"... I would be more amenable to accepting the proposed text if Johnbod's assertion were true. Unfortunately, I don't quite see that assertion holding true in the current article text. Perhaps I'm confused as how what the final text would read. Could someone (probably Xandar since I think we're headed towards his proposed text) post the complete paragraph that would result from the proposed edit? Thanx. --Richard S (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the draft I've now marked as "LATEST" above:

Elements of the this traditional narrative agree with the fragmentary historical evidence, "....[26] however modern scholars differ widely in their views. Some scholars accept assert that the historical evidence indicates that the Catholic Church is the direct continuance of directly continuous with the original 1st century church of the Apostles Peter and Paul. who were martyred in Rome. Others disagree, arguing that systems and structures that developed significantly later are imposed by the traditional narrative upon the primitive church." Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not so sure I agree with the "others disagree" statment as it's currently written. Some of those scholars, like Duffy and others don't explicity disagree with the historical narrative, what they are saying is "I don't know" rather than making an explicitly oppositional statement. These are not disputing the continuity of the church but the developement of the episcopal office - which is not one and the same. I think we need a better sentence for the "others disagree" that includes this set of scholars and make a separate statment for those who completely disagree with the whole Catholic claim. Right now, we are unjustly lumping them all together as "others disagree" and not showing Reader that there are some scholars who "sit on the fence". NancyHeise ^talk 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's true that the beliefs that "the Catholic Church is directly continuous with the original 1st century church" and also that "systems and structures that developed significantly later are imposed by the traditional narrative upon the primitive church" are not necessarily contradictory - indeed I imagine believing both these very broad statements to be true is very common among specialists, if not the majority view. Oh well! Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I believe the New Testament discusses elders and deacons but not bishops and priests. However, it is possible to argue that elders became priests and the role of bishop developed afterwards without arguing against continuity. Arguing that the primitive church evolved into the church of the Roman empire would not be an argument against continuity. Some of the arguments against continuity would include arguing that Peter never went to Rome, or never served as its bishop or that he did not consecrate Linus. An even more extreme argument against continuity would be that Roman Christianity was invented by the Romans and is significantly different from the post-Resurrection Christianity. (This is a fringe viewpoint which is not unlike that asserted by the LDS church). In our attempt to be concise, we have muddled two different issues (continuity vs. evolution of governance structures). We should not do this. --Richard S (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I will be able to spend some more time on this over the weekend. In the meantime, I have added some more sources at the bottom of the page for consideration. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 23:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Its too hard to find this discussion, I hope no one minds that I have continued it here [40]. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 13:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

More sources on Church origins to ponder

I browsed through another library today and found some more sources that offered more insight on the Church origins section that is the subject of our ongoing discussion. A German historian named August Franzen wrote a book on Church history entitled Kirchengeschichte. I have a copy of this book that was revised and edited by John P. Dolan and translated from German by Peter Becker entitled "A History of the Church".

• From page 5 "When Jesus compares his church with a house or with a flock (Mt16, 18, 21, 42; 1Cor 3, 11; Acts 4, 11; and Mt 26, 31; John 10, 16; 1 Cor 9, 7) he explains quite clearly also that the house requires a strong rock foundation and that a firm shepherd is necessary for the guidance of the flock. From his disciples Jesus ordained the "Twelve" especially chosen ones, with Peter appointed as the shepherd with the major responsibility for his flock (Mk 3, 14f; Mt 16, 17ff; Lk 22, 31ff; John 21, 15ff). Thus Christ himself established the first "offices". An office is more than a transitory service; the official appointment invests it with a permanent character, and the unionn of the service function with a permanent commission continues beyond the death of the individual holder. The office gives the holder the power to speak and act in the name and authority of him who appointed him, and the office must include, therefore, the successorship. In this way the apostles regarded their office as a "God-given grace to fulfill the service of Jesus Christ to perform the holy work of the gospel of God" (Rom 15, 16) and appointed assistants and successors to their office. The early church also held this view, and from this the church was built."
• From page 7-8 "More than any other epoch of history, the time of the founding and establishment of the church in the initial "apostolic" era was of decisive consequence for its historical development. 1)After the ascension of Christ the disciples were confronted with a totally new situation. To be sure, the departing master had left them an unequivocal mission (Mt 28, 18; Mk 16, 15), the content of which was the continuation of the preaching of salvation and the proclamation of the gospel message of the eschatological kingdom of Christ. It seems that concrete directions were not provided, however, regarding their future life together and concerning the details of the organizational structure of their community. With respect to Christ's wishes in this regard, the opinions of exegetes vary considerably. But if Protestant theologians want to paint a contrast between what Christ really wanted and what actually developed, it must be pointed out that the apostles and the first disciples who, after all, were eye- and ear-witnesses of his revelation, certainly must have been in a better position to interpret the will of Jesus than contemporary scholars two thousand years later."
• From page 8 "Yet the Scriptures alone are not adequate to interpret the events (sola-scriptura-principle), and it is imperative that the early Christian apostolic tradition be included as a vital factor in the calculation." ... "Hierarchy (=sacred origin, divine domination) meant that the order was of divine origin, because it was given to the church by Christ himself. It is impossible that the apostles could have been mistaken in their actions, because according to the principles of faith of the church the "Twelve" themselves were still bearers of divine revelation which they had received directly from Christ."
• From page 11 "The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul clearly demonstrate that from the beginning of the early church the spiritual "office" was regarded as an essential structural element of community order."
• From page 17-18 "The oldest tradition of the Roman community has always traced its origins to Peter. ...it is clearly established that Peter was in Rome. The First Epistle of Peter, which was written by him in the year 63/64 in Rome (1Pet 5, 13), as well as his martyr's death in Rome during Nero's persecution of Christians, probably in July 64, testify to it. ...Consequently, the fact of his Roman martyrdom, which unanimous tradition traces to the earliest time, has to be regarded as historically assured. This tradition points to Peter as the founder of the Roman Church in an unbroken line of witnesses from the first letter of Clement (ca 96), to the martyr-bishop Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Roman's), to Irenaeus of Lyon, who was the first to record a complete Roman line of succession (Adv. haereses, III, 1, 1; 3, 2), to Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, Church History, II, 25, 8), to the Roman presbyter Caius (Eusebius, Ch. H., II 25, 7), to Tertullian (De praescritione haereticorum, 32; Adv. Marcionem IV, 5), and many others. Together with Paul, who also died a martyr's death in Rome during Nero's persecution, Peter is mentioned as the founding apostle at the head of all lists of Roman bishops. To this direct apostolic origin, the Roman bishops knew very well, they owed their special position and meaning within the whole church; a fact, which the other churches always acknowledged as well."
• From page 19 "We must not be surprised that the oldest Roman bishop's lists have no dates. Historical interest awakened only much later and it is significant that it was a historian who first attempted dating. Eusebius of Caesarea ...."
• I have some other books to add but I don't have time right now. This just supplements the others we have already listed on this page - Thomas Noble, John Vidmar, Henry Chadwick, etc. - more to come. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 00:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is from A Summary of Catholic History, Volume I, Ancient and Medieval History by Newman Eberhardt.
• From page 56 "The Apostles were the first bishops. As a rule, they did not reside permanently in one place, but continually travelled to found new churches and confirm others in the Faith. During the apostolic period, then, the residential episcopate does not seem to have been the general rule. St. Peter, indeed, was bishop of Rome, but besides his universal primacy, continued to exercise direct missionary rule over Antioch, Ponus, etc. ... During their lifetime these apostles remained the sole ordinaries of the sees founded by them; that is, though they may have had auxiliaries possessing episcopal orders, such as Sts. Titus and Timothy, they themselves retained jurisdiction over all their foundations."
• From page 60 "Christ instituted a hierarchy to rule, teach, and sanctify His Church. Since these functions were essential to Christianity, this hierarchical office was de jure perpetual. De facto, the apostles designated their immediate successors by selecting, training, and ordaining vicars, to whom at death they committed their churches. These apostolic vicars, at first themselves styled apostles, carried on the missionary labors of the original Twelve. 'Formerly they called the same persons priests and bishops; those who are now called bishops they called apostles. In course of time they left the naem of apostle to those who were the apostles in the strict sense, and applied the name of bishop to those formerly called apostles' (Theodoret, On I Timothy, iii, 1). The beginning of this transmission of office can be seen in St. Paul's pastoral charges to Sts. Titus and Timothy, and we are assured that St. John 'used to journey by request to neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches' (Clement, Quis Dives, 42). We are assured by St. Clement of Rome that such a transfer actually took place: 'Our apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife about the episcopal office. For this reason, then, inasmuch as they had perfect foreknowledge, they named those previously mentioned (episkopoi and diaconoi) that when these should fall asleep (in the Lord), other approved men would succeed them ...'(Corinthians 44). Thus was perpetuated a legitimate divine delegation: 'The apostles preached the Gospel to us from the Lord, Jesus Christ; Christ from God. Christ, then, was sent by God, and the apostles by Christ' (ibid., 42). Now it is the bishops who are sent by the apostles so that susequently St. Irenaeus could challenge heretics: 'We are able to name those appointed bishops by the apostles in the churches, and their successors down to our own times' (A. H., III, 3). Tertullian made a similar claim (Prescriptions, 32, 36)."

These two new sources make identical claims about the origins of the Church and episcopal offices - that they were instituted by Jesus. This latter source is used as a reference for seminary students, I'm not sure if the first book is used as such. NancyHeise ^talk 02:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I found a book entitled Chronicle of the Popes, The Reign-By-Reign Record of the Papacy from St. Peter to the Present by P. G. Maxwell-Stuart
• from page 13 "After being called to discipleship he travelled with Jesus, gradually acquiring the formost place among the Twelve Apostles ....'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ... Henceforth Peter, despite his impulsive nature, clearly plays the leading role among the growing band of the disciples. ...(author goes over historical evidence of Peter's travels) ...Therefore he seems to have gone to Antioch which, according to tradition, claimed him as its first bishop. Finally, he went to Rome. In spite of the silence of the New Testament on this point, early Church writers are in agreement that he worked and died there; and according to the historian Eusebius (c. 260-340) he was executed during the reign of Nero (54-68). ...There follows a sequence of more or less shadowy popes, all based in Rome, about some of whom not a great deal is known beyond pious legend. All have been canonized. Linus (c. 66-c. 78) is supposed to have been appointed pope by Peter and Paul acting in concert, and if these dates are anywhere near correct, he will have been pontiff when Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus in August 70, and may have seen the hordes of prisoners in Rome, labouring on the massive ne Flavian amphitheatre (the Colusseum)."

This third source is less helpful than the previous two but I think it helps to see what a variety of scholars have to say about the subject. Clearly, there are those who agree with the Church's version of its own history and there are those who disagree - the simple fact we want to present in the Origins and Missions section. NancyHeise ^talk 03:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, if you look at WP:V & WP:RS you'll see that the 1st criterion for reliability of sources is the publisher. So it would help if you gave that information. I think that should actually be policy for citations, but it wasn't the last I looked. Peter jackson (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Amazon, Eberhardt's book was published in 1961 by B.Herder Book Co. The Franzen book was published in 10 volumes from 1965 through 1981 by Herder. I assume these are the same publisher, Herder publishers. I don't have these sources, though, so Nancy please correct me if I am wrong. Karanacs (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly, there are those who agree with the Church's version of its own history and there are those who disagree - the simple fact we want to present in the Origins and Missions section
  • Nancy, where in any of this do you find " the Church's version of its own history"? The Catechism carefully avoids endorsing any historical claims. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Info for the three books I posted in this section:

• PG Maxwell-Stuart “Chronicle of the Popes” 1997 Thames & Hudson Ltd, ISBN 0-500017980
• Newman C. Eberhardt, C. M. “A Summary of Catholic History, Ancient and Medieval History” 1961 B. Herder Book Co. Library of Congress catalog no 61-8059
• August Franzen, “A History of the Church” 1969 Herder and Herder, Library of Congress no 7879825 NancyHeise ^talk 23:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I also found this in Encyclopedia Americana (published by Grolier 1998) in their article entitled "Catholic Church". From p. 44 of volume 6 "The institutional structures of the apostolic church laid the foundation for the development of the modern organization. By sharing and exercising Christ's authority after His death, the Apostles built up the church in definite hierarchical form that reflected the order of contemporary Jewish communities." This contradicts Haldraper's proposed edit that said the order reflected Roman government. I am not sure if this reflects some sort of scholarly disagreement or not - just putting it here for all of us to consider. NancyHeise ^talk 23:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That same Encyclopedia Americana also had this to say about the early church. From page 44 again "The Apostles themselves, and their successors, occupied a special presidential position in the early church. St. Peter exercised leadership among the Apostles in the name of the Lord. Local communities, beginning at Antioch and spreading through the known world were distinctive in character, but were joined together in the body of Christ (Colossians 1:13-18). Various functions within these communities, such as preaching, teaching and presiding at the Eucharist, were eventually stabilized into permanent ministries. From the 2nd to the 4th century, internal growth and the need for adaptation to social circumstances wrought organizational changes. Local communities were centralized into dioceses under the rule of a single bishop; ecclesiastical offices were established to absorb diverse ministries; and stable forms of consultation and cooperation among bishops were made possible by regional and provincial synods." - tertiary sources such as encyclopedias are not allowed to be used as references in Wikipedia but there are some uses Wikipedia allows of them. We can use them to gather information on scholarly POV's. NancyHeise ^talk 23:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, Encyclopedia Americana, under its article on the Catholic Church says this on page 29 "The worldwide diffusion of modern Christianity is in sharp contrast to its humble origins. Its founder, Jesus of Nazareth, was born in Palestine around 8-4BC. His life and teaching were recorded by his earliest followers in the New Testament." NancyHeise ^talk 23:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I really think if we can get an agreed formula up above, we can leave further expansion on this to the history article, Early Christianity & the other articles. It is having to get a complicated subject with a wide range of views into a few lines that causes much of the difficulties. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree we can be concise, I was just trying to round out our available list of sources since some editors here have suggested, in the past, that there were no scholars that agreed with Church POV of its own origins. I wanted to make sure we have addressed this point. NancyHeise ^talk 00:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we have an a good range of sources now. These can be used in the Origins section. Xandar 00:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)