Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Catholic instead of Roman Catholic

suggestion to include points in article Re:title

refer for argument points: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

Reference: Thurston, H. (1912). Roman Catholic. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.114.32 (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe we have resolved the name issue after months of discussion and a successful mediation with over 19 editors. I have no desire to discuss the issue any further : ) NancyHeise ^talk 01:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not; in general, any action which keeps producing new complaints is not resolved. The mediation was between the single-purpose accounts who adorn this talk page with Ultramontane opinions and a hand-picked selection of rivals; it has not satisfied all those who took part in it; it can have no force over others.

Even if it were flawless, it is now a past decision. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.

However, Nancy's last paragraph, even if offered in jest, does provide a road out. All those who discussed this question in the past are together a small minority of Wikipedians; if we put it up for discussion, and all of us who have ever discussed the matter before shut up, we might actually get a result. (It would differ chiefly in acrimony from including all of us; we have always beem closely divided.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you hope to win a consensus of the uninformed and ignorant? Not a good idea. We could do that on all the articles. Anybody who knows anything about the subject, shuts up, and the people without a clue write the articles based on tittle tattle and urban legends. And your attempts to rewrite the naming policies to push your POV on this issue wont work either. Xandar 12:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would not win any consensus, for I participated in the last debate, and would shut up too. More seriously, I do not believe that our fellow editors are either uninformed or ignorant; nor if they were, would it matter to a democrat who believes in the jury system: even the ignorant are better judges of what the generality understand than the tendentious and polemical. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I think the anon above was putting in his/her two cents for the agreed consensus. Please click on the link he provides above [3] NancyHeise ^talk 01:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, that reference. Insofar as this article adopts the talking points of the Catholic Encyclopedia, it becomes POV and liable to factual error; the New Catholic Encyclopedia, by contrast, is a work of scholarship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted by thousands of top grade reference works across the world. Next. Xandar 12:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is quoted as a source for "what Catholics believe" (or did believe in the early 20th century), or for "admissions against interest" by the Catholic party. But it is clearly not an unbiased scholarly source, and can't be quoted as such, since it has a definite point of view and had to support and conform to a particular sectarian position on many issues in order to obtain the nihil obstat and imprimatur from Catholic authorities. Harmakheru (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And off we go again...-:)Haldraper (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. Let's not go here again. Can we have, say, a twelve-month moratorium during which nobody mentions the article name? Please?! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It was six months the last time this came up; but tag it as {{pov-title}}, since it is disputed, and I have no problem leaving it alone. If this is done, newbies may be less likely to bring up the subject too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion but I expect that some will interpret it as an invitation to keep reigniting the dispute. Isn't there some policy that "protects" a consensus for a certain period? If not then there needs to be. Afterwriting (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there is none, and WP:Consensus opposes any. If a real consensus has been reached, it doesn't need protection; the mark of a real consensus is that almost everyone will tolerate it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, but common sense and courtesy suggest that editors ought not to re-raise an issue that has been "settled" just because a perfect consensus was not achieved. In the absence of new evidence (not just a rehash of previously presented arguments), decisions ought to be allowed to stand for 3-6 months just so we can get a break and do something else other than go around in circles for the umpty-umpth time. In other words, don't reopen a dispute just because you disagree with the outcome; do so because you truly think a different result can be reached. (note I said "can be" not "ought to be") --Richard (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Pick a date then; and preferably tag (a perpetual state of "we'll discuss that three months from now" won't do). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There will never be 100% consensus on this, and the handful of editors that objects will always object. But if consensus was reached, at some point dissenters need to at least pause, or we'll have the same discussion in here every day. Dissenters are certainly under no obligation to accept a consensus in the sense of agreeing with it...but at least show some respect for it. Also, we should not start a 90-day countdown to reopen the discussion. That is arbitrary and, frankly, an ominous precedent to set for issues that don't reach 100% consensus. But raising the issue in a few months if new arguments or support exists, or even to test the temperature of the community, would not be unreasonable. That would be consistent with WP:consensus, showing deference to consensus while acknowledging that it is not immutable. It's just rather tiring to come to this talk page every day and hear the same thing repeated over and over. --anietor (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If there had been consensus on this, there would not be protest - by those who participated in the failed mediation and by others. That would be a different situation. As it is, there never has been consensus on this, either way; and we should tag accordingly - unless Richardhusr's suggestion of postponement is accompanied by a date. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. I lost my will to live about half-way through the last round of mediation. But if people want to raise the issue again, so be it. Here's a proposal for a rule of thumb about when we could open the issue again: how long did the last mediation last? I forget, but it was about three months, no? (Or more. It felt like years.) How about that it's only polite that people wait twice the length of the previous mediation before bringing the issue up again. So if the mediation did last three months, then wait until six months after it ended. That would mean that we would only be spending a third of our time debating the article title. Which is already plenty, but still... It seems a fair rule of thumb. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of Wikipedia decisions are made by a small minority; it is the nature of the beast. Those with a a degree of expertise are drawn to their topics of interest as well as those who are also interested not out of expertise but other motivations. It is beyond silly to say that a Catholic source is not best suited for declaring the name of the Catholic Church. It would be similar to saying that all medical journals must be ignored when studying medical procedures and we must or preferably use plumbing journals. The logic boggles the mind; of course we use Catholic sources for all things Catholic! It is absurd to think otherwise.

If editors have something new to the table, bring it forward for discussion. However, if we just want to play games by rehashing the same old ineffective line of reasoning for why this article should be named Roman Catholic Church, I encourage all to to my Sandbox2 and we can talk there. It may take a while for me to respond to you, but don't let that stop anyone. Write as much as a you like and for as long as you like and as often as you like. Heck, bring it up every day for the rest of the year. The rest of us will be avid readers to your new logic, reasons, etc. It will be a fascinating way to pass the time. Next topic? --^StormRider 19:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Where it's a case of what the Church calls itself, I agree that Catholic sources should be preeminent. What I and some other editors object to is the over reliance in other areas - World War II is a good example - on authors who are also ordained members of the Church (Bokenkotter, McGonigle, Vidmar) when there are plenty of alternative, mainstream, secular historians who could provide a more balanced view.Haldraper (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"The vast majority of Wikipedia decisions are made by a small minority", SR? Are there any WP decisions not taken by a small minority? Peter jackson (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Good point, Peter. Beware the CABAL, it may be you. Resistance is futile; assimilation into the cabal is inevitable. --Richard (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Peter, my edit was in response to Septentrionalis above, "All those who discussed this question in the past are together a small minority of Wikipedians; if we put it up for discussion, and all of us who have ever discussed the matter before shut up, we might actually get a result." To me it is comical to attempt to disregard a decision when made by numerous participants by ridiculing it as being made by a small minority. I would agree were it a decision made by three editors, but that was not the case here. The consensus was achieved by numerous editors and it should stand for quite some time or until an editor comes up with some new references and cause the decision to be reversed. --^StormRider 17:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

StormRider raises a valid point. Just because a decision should be allowed to rest for a while (say, 3 or 6 months) doesn't mean it SHOULD BE revisited as soon as the moratorium is over. If editors are asked to revisit any decision, there should be some justification presented for revisiting the decision such as "sources X, Y and Z were never presented" or "the question was not advertised to a wide enough group of editors e.g. via RFC or via posting to relevant article talk pages or Wikiproject talk pages". This particular decision was fairly widely advertised so I don't think a reasonable challenge can be mounted on that basis. I certainly would be open to seeing new sources but I think it behooves anyone challenging the decision to have reviewed at least the mediation pages if not the article Talk Page discussion that preceded the mediation. In particular, the challenger should be familiar with the sources that have been presented so far.

It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy although it may resemble one from time to time. We shouldn't keep repeating !votes just because one side didn't like the result; if we took that approach, there would be no end to the repeat votes because there will always be a losing side that doesn't like the result.

--Richard (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Have the mediation pages been undeleted? Until they are, they are unreviewable.

The mediation does not count as "review by a wide panel of editors"; it was a discussion by a handpicked panel of complaintants on a different subject; no-one else was notified. Therefore Richardhusr's conditions are met now - but (as I have said) I will be content with an acknowledgement that the title is disputed. Is anyone so audacious as to deny that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson, we are not here to affirm or deny your feelings. Looking at your history of edits in this and other pages, this seems to be a consistent theme for you. We are not about to issue an "acknowledgment" of your objections. We know (all too well) what your dispute is with the title. Like it or not, consensus was reached. Nice try attempting to portray editors who disagree with you as "audacious", especially when they are part of the consensus; it's certainly a gutsy interpretation of being bold. I wholeheartedly reject your statement that the discussion was a handpicked panel of complainants, that it was on a different subject, and that no one else was notified. That is revisionist history belied by the facts (thank goodness wp maintains histories of discussions). I have to say that I really wanted to just ignore your last comment so as not to illicit more droning on of the same string of old complaints, but I also did not want silence to be interpreted as agreement. Tough call... --anietor (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Anietor capable of reading plain English? I did not request that any feelings be acknowledged; but the fact that editors do dispute the neutrality of this title; and audacious describes those who would deny that it is disputed. Anietor denies much, but he does not deny that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You may not like the result of the recent process, but that does not justify a POV tag. --Snowded ^TALK 14:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Succinctly put, Snowded! And for Pmanderson's purposes, yes, I deny it is disputed. To do otherwise would give you license to repeatedly tag and vandalize the article. --anietor (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, that flag isn't called for at the moment. Majoreditor (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson, there are better things to do with your time than try to argue a point that has already been decided. --Rockstone (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

60-40 is not a decision, it's a stalemate; I will be happy to continue this discussion with anybody with candor enough to join me in acknowledging this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it wasn't 60-40. As noted weeks ago when this was first suggested, this 60-40 breakdown is an invention based on Pmanderson's creative revisionist history, including a bizarre analysis of how certain editors really wanted to vote (using comments to actually trump their actual vote). --anietor (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My claim is based on this poll. I should like to know Anietor's count of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Middle Ages

I would like to develope this section with some more info on the Knights Templar. That page is WP:FA, maybe we can take a look at some of the references there and put something into this article about the developement of banking. The Church also forbade Christians from lending money for interest (what they called usury) although some monasteries did and this resulted in the Jews going into that field. One of our FAC reviewers criticized the article for not including something about this. Any objections? If not I will get to work on it as I have time. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 04:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Nancy, I object. On a number of occasions, you and Xandar have objected to discussing the actions and attitudes of Catholics vs. those of the Church itself. Personally, I think it is valid to discuss the actions and attitudes of Catholics to the extent that these were fostered and encouraged by the Church. However, as you and Xandar have pointed out on a number of occasions, it is often hard to prove such a linkage.

The Knights Templar were Catholics but they were not an official part of the Catholic Church but rather a force independent of it. The most that I can see useful for this article would be a brief mention of the role of Pope (I forget his name) in possibly encouraging the suppression of the Knights Templar. However, as you and Xandar often like to differentiate between the actions of the Catholic Church and those of Catholic monarchs, even the suppression was done by the King of France and other monarchs and not by the Church itself.

--Richard (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems a bit premature to object without having seen Nancy's proposal. The Templars were more than independent Catholic actors. They were a monastic order officially endorsed by the Church at the Council of Troyes and granted special privileges in at least one papal bull. In any event, they can hardly be characterized as mere Catholics acting as a group but outside the constraints of the institutional Church. Let's see what is suggested and evaluate it then. --anietor (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Richard's point above - we must be consistent in how we present information here. I also question whether the Templars were important enough to the history of the Church to justify much space. If we're beefing up the Middle Ages section in particular, it needs more information on the Church's influence in European politics; that is much more significant than the Templars. Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Templars were definitely part of the Church, and their suppression was forced at swordpoint by Philip IV of France. I think a sentence or two on banking might be a useful addition. Xandar 00:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do refs support view that "Many scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus"?

In contrast to the sentence in the lead about the Church being a continuation of the early Christian community in Palestine, this one states that the Catholic Church was actually founded there by Jesus in his lifetime. A more orthodox academic view is that the Catholic Church in its recognisable form (Pope/centralised bureaucracy in Rome, bishops in dioceses across Europe) was founded in the late Roman Empire of the early fourth century and in many ways replicated and eventually replaced its structures.Haldraper (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hal, it's not clear whether you are challenging the current text of the article or the text that I proposed. I'm going to assume you are talking about the current text which reads: "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter,[22] a view shared by many historians of Christianity." As I and others have stated before, if we drop the phrase "a view shared by many historians of Christianity", the sentence is fine as it stands because it makes an assertion about what the Catholic Church believes. Most of Christianity believes that Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ. The question is whether there is enough of linkage between the Catholic Church and Simon Peter to say that "many historians share this view". Do historians believe what Irenaeus wrote "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric." The early Christian Church may have evolved between the time of Simon Peter and Constantine and Leo the Great. That's not the point. The question is whether historians believe that Peter and Paul went to Rome and made Linus Bishop of Rome, thus starting the papal succession which links the current Bishop of Rome to the Primacy of Simon Peter. Do at least some historians share this view? If so, we are only attempting to qualify which ones do and which ones do not. If no significant historians share this view and the general consensus is that the Church as we know it was "founded" in the late Roman Empire, then we will need to see what the sources are that support such an assertion. --Richard (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, tagging it as "failed verification" when a discussion is going on is silly. I have reverted. --Snowded ^TALK 09:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And I think Richard has written a very clear summation of what is in dispute here. Xandar 10:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not talking about or challenging the sentence in the lead that reads "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter, a view shared by many historians of Christianity." I am fine with that as it stands. The sentence that I think is unsupported by its supposed refs - and therefore tagged as such - is "Many scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus". I thought that was clear from my initial post but obviously not, can we please therefore discuss that.Haldraper (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. While the "failed verification" flag may be a bit much, the statement would benefit from firmer sourcing. An alternative would be to rephrase the sentence. Majoreditor (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What about this? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm Its a list of all the popes since Peter. It clearly shows that the position of Pope had existed for many years before the late Roman Empire. --Rockstone (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Rockstone35, this would be a better link to consult for the Catholic perspective on this question.

With all due respect, the list of Popes is a bit of retrospective, somewhat revisionist history prepared for easy consumption by the masses.

From about.com

Many people imagine that the current structure and administration of the Catholic Church today is much like it has always been, but that’s not the case. Early on, there isn’t even evidence of a single bishop of Rome presiding over churches in the city. Although the official lists give the names of several “popes” during the first decades of Christianity, it is more likely that they simply presided over a council of elders. The first pope who was actually a single bishop presiding over the diocese of Rome was Pius I (142 - 155).

From our article on the Pope:

The title "Pope" was from the early third century an honorific designation used for any bishop in the West. In the East it was used only for the Bishop of Alexandria. Pope Marcellinus (d. 304) is the first Bishop of Rome shown in sources to have had the title "Pope" used of him. From the 6th century, the imperial chancery of Constantinople normally reserved this designation for the Bishop of Rome. From the early sixth century it began to be confined in the West to the Bishop of Rome, a practice that was firmly in place by the eleventh century, when Pope Gregory VII declared it reserved for the Bishop of Rome.

In the lead, the article cites Wilken p.281 (currently reference #24). The above history of the title "Pope" is what leads Wilken to write "Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome."

The point here is that Peter was never called "Pope" and proably neither were Linus, Anacletus or Clement or any other Bishop of Rome until the early third century. And, even then, the title "Pope" did not mean, in and of itself, "Supreme Pontiff" (Pontifex Maximus). The Bishop of Rome did not become Pontifex Maximus until the 4th century.

From our article on Pontifex Maximus:

It is said that Pope Damasus I was the first Bishop of Rome to assume the title, Other sources say that the use of such titles by bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, came later.

This is not to argue that the Bishop of Rome exerted no authority over other bishops prior to Pope Damasus I in the 4th century but it does indicate that the authority of the Bishop of Rome was evolving in the years prior to that. It is a matter of dispute whether the Bishop of Rome was always considered the "head of the Christian Church". Obviously, the Catholics think that. The Orthodox and Anglicans have a different perspective.

Irenaeus asserted a link between Peter/Paul and Linus, Anacletus and Clement. There is a challenge earlier on this page to the linkage between Peter and the rest of the papal succession on the grounds that Peter was either never in Rome or never Bishop of Rome. The argument that Peter was never in Rome is a minority view. The argument that he was not Bishop of Rome is probably a minority view in mainstream Christianity. I can't say what secular historians think of this but there seems to be scant support for Peter being the Bishop of Rome even in the New Testament. Xandar argues that this is irrelevant because Peter was Bishop by dint of being one of the Twelve Apostles and so (as I understand his argument) he could have consecrated Linus without ever having been officially "Bishop of Rome".

--Richard (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict with Majoreditor and Rockstone35]

Sorry, Hal, my fault. It was late at night and I jumped to the wrong conclusion. It would have helped if you had mentioned the section heading "Origin and mission" to help identify which sentence you were talking about.

In any event, I agree that there are problems with the sentence "Many scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus". Is the assertion "the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus" meant to be an assertion of historical fact or Church doctrine (i.e. "sacred history" as StormRider puts it). Who are these "many scholars"? Are they Catholic theologians, historians or writers?

The sentence as written is not NPOV because, while it is arguably true, it gives the wrong impression by the vagueness of the phrase "many scholars". Once again, most of mainstream Christianity (and even to some extent the Restorationists) believes that the Christian church was founded by Jesus as some combination of the consecration of Peter (before the crucifixion), the Great Commission and Pentecost (both after the resurrection).

One of the references cites Norman as asserting that "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime."

If we talk about "Jesus' earthly lifetime", are we talking before the crucifixion" or after it? Are we really trying to assert that "many scholars agree" that the Church was founded by the consecration of Peter and not by the phenomenon known as Pentecost? It seems to me that the major motivation for such a claim is to establish the claims of the Catholic Church to the Primacy of Simon Peter vs. the claims of other Christian churches to a more ecumenical basis of the early Christian Church.

Some historians argue that the Christian church was started in the years after Jesus died and we really do need to make some mention of this view if we are going to state the Christian perspective although it's not clear to me how much weight to give it. Is there a consensus among historians about this?

Whether or not you believe in the resurrection, the point here is that there is little evidence of an organized church existing before Jesus died; there were, AFAIK, no deacons, elders or bishops in those days. The church as an institution does not come into being until after Jesus dies and arguably not even until after he ascends into heaven. The New Testament establishes the existence of the offices deacon, presbyter/elder and bishop but not in the Gospels.

If we are going to assert that the Church was founded by Jesus, we need to make clear what we mean by "the Church". Do we mean that Jesus founded "the Catholic Church" or the "Christian Church"? The mainstream view is that these were one and the same leaving out, of course, the Restorationists and some recent views which suggest a pluralist Christianity that includes, among others, the Gnostics). We also need to make clear that Jesus didn't found the church by appointing bishops and establishing the offices of elder and deacon. Basically, all he said was “On this rock I will build my church” and left the details to be filled in after he died. Even the Great Commission is not given until after the resurrection.

--Richard (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is the question as to how seriously to take the instructions at the Last Supper. I think I've read somewhere, although I will have to check, that some believe the instructions given there, as they indicate how to perform the rites of the church, were how Jesus "founded" the church. It might take me a couple of days to find the sourcing for that though. This leaves open the question about whether currently "many scholars" agree, particularly if the sourcing is somewhat old and thus cannot speak to the current thinking. I think that "argument" could be made by the various Orthodox, Anglican, and Catholic churches. Let me try to find the sourcing in any event. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

John, are you referring to the belief that the Last Supper was when Jesus ordained the apostles, thus forming the church? That was supported by the Council of Trent, and Lumen Gentium. A brief summary can be found at http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/PRIEST.TXT --anietor (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the Council of Trent is looking backwards and imposing a theological interpretation on history. In other words, just cause they said so doesn't mean it is necessarily so. This is what the Catholic Church teaches. It may not be unshakeable historical truth.

The problem here is that one can imagine a very different Christianity (indeed some do imagine a church-less Christianity) which incorporates all these events and not wind up with the Catholic Church. Those who argue for a pluralistic Christianity in the first few centuries following the death of Jesus do make such a case (i.e. that mainstream Christianity was not the only form of early Christianity, just the one which was most successful).

So... when we say that Jesus "founded" the Christian Church or even the Catholic Church through these actions, we are presenting the viewpoint of mainstream Christianity and, in particular, the Catholic Church. That's OK but we need to present this viewpoint as an interpretation of history (indeed a theological interpretation), not as indisputable historical fact. It's not as if Jesus called a meeting of the Twelve Apostles and said, "OK, here's the Charter of the Christian Church, you twelve are the Board of Directors, we'll call you bishops, Peter, you're the head bishop, let's call you Pope, and uh, we'll need some elders, nah, let's call them priests and then we also need deacons and hey, those priests can't get married and they gotta be men. OK, all in favor? Great. Let's file this charter with the local Imperial Roman Office of Not-for-Profit Corporations and get this thing started". If we could find the minutes of such a meeting or the filing of such a corporate charter , we would then have solid historical evidence for the assertion "Jesus founded the Christian Church during his earthly lifetime". Failing that, we are using theological interpretations of the New Testament account of his teachings and extrapolating them into the founding of the Christian (Catholic) Church as an institution.

We have to be really clear on what is historical fact and what is theological interpretation. What is historical fact is that certain events are recorded in the New Testament and the Patristic writings. Whether these events are historical fact can be argued. Whether these events can be interpreted to be the "founding" of a religious institution called "the Catholic Church" is far from indisputable historical fact.

--Richard (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We also have to agree to the definition of the terms "many", "scholars", and "agree". The terms as such do not specifically indicate neutrality. Lots of scholars have been and are Catholic or Orthodox, and I think they would support the idea. "Agree" could be problematic because it isn't sure what the standard of agreement here in this case. If these scholars agreed for different reasons, would they still agree? Personally, with the current phrasing, I have to say that the terms would permit the usage, because they don't address the matter of "non-partisan" scholars. Certainly, many/most of the Christian scholars over history are or were Catholic or Orthodox. Alternately, someting like what Britannica does here could be done to deal with this question, saying that the elements which we associate with the Catholic Church can be found in the Bible, and leaving alone the question as to whether that means those elements necessarily mean the Catholic Church was present. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If the key issue is what is the historical evidence for the foundation of the Church, it is probably more considerable than for many contemporary events whose veracity is never challenged. There are:

• The Gospels, of 1st century origin, which record Jesus founding a continuing Church and appointing Peter to a leading role.
• Acts. (also 1st century) which records the early development of the Church between Jesus's death and the imprisonment of Paul in Rome.
• The NT letters: written between the 50s and 100 AD, which confirm the existence of the Church, the episcopal status of the Apostles and the continuing concept of one united Church. The presence of Peter and Paul together, and their role in organising, teaching and managing the worldwide Church.
• Pagan reports of the presence of large numbers of Christians in Rome at the time of Nero. (60s AD), and their persecution, confirming the Christian documents.
• Tradition, reported by many writers from the early 2nd Century onward that Peter and Paul led the Church in Rome, and that Rome was the one Church with which all must agree because of this. The strong tradition of the leadership of Rome is very early, and unchallenged in its primacy even by the other patriarchates.
• Archaeology, including the evidence of the Roman catacombs and the tombs including that of Peter found at the Vatican, itself built on the site of one of the stadiums used for public executions.

These are the reasons why few historians would seriously deny that the Catholic Church is in continuance of the original church founded on Peter in Rome. Some might deny it - but based purely on theorising rather than solid evidence. Asking for original 1st century documents is going too far. If we said historians didn't believe in Julius Caesar because there are no extant 1st century documents about him - then this would be seen as being ridiculous. Xandar 00:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's OR until you put it in the words of a reliable source. Find us a source who presents these arguments and who either says what the article text says or says "few historians would seriously deny that the Catholic Church is in continuance of the original church founded on Peter in Rome". It's not acceptable to go provide citations to one or two historians and then extrapolate that to "many historians". [[4]] says "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. ... The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor." WP:RS doesn't explicitly say that you can't say "many historians" but the spirit of the text suggests that this is not preferred.

I like the Encyclopedia Britannica approach which says "By its own reading of history, Roman Catholicism originated with the very beginnings of Christianity. " and "At least in an inchoate form, all the elements of catholicity—doctrine, authority, universality—are evident in the New Testament." This makes clear that we are talking about historical interpretation from the POV of the Catholic Church and mainstream Christianity rather than presenting it as historical fact.

--Richard (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I think what you say supports the view that the Church is a continuation of the early Christian community in first century Palestine as per the sentence in the lead but not the one we're actually discussing, i.e. the one in 'Origin and Mission' that states that "Many scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus". If you think about what distinguishes the Catholic Church - headed by a Pope and bureaucracy (Curia) in Rome, use of Latin as its official language, subdivided into dioceses corresponding to imperial provinces - then its roots in the late Roman Empire are unmistakeable.Haldraper (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar writes, "few historians would seriously deny that the Catholic Church is in continuance of the original church founded on Peter in Rome". But in fact most mainstream historians today--Protestant, Catholic, and secular--do deny this, for the reason that there is no historical proof that the "original church in Rome" was in fact "founded on Peter":

"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." (Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Christianity (Paulist Press, 1983), p. 98.)

"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." (Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2nd ed. (Westminster Press, 1962), p. 234.)

"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.)

"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." (J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes (Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 6.)

"There is increasing agreement that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there, but we have no trustworthy evidence that Peter ever served as the supervisor or bishop of the local church in Rome." (Building Unity, Ecumenical Documents IV (Paulist Press, 1989), p. 130.)

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that there was a Christian community at Rome before either Peter or Paul arrived there:

"Even on the Day of Pentecost, "Roman strangers" (advenœ Romani, Acts 2:10) were present at Jerusalem, and they surely must have carried the good news to their fellow-citizens at Rome ... according to the pseudo-Clementine Epistles, St. Barnabas was the first to preach the Gospel in the Eternal City." "Rome", Catholic Encyclopedia [5]

So the "original" Christian community at Rome was not founded by either Peter or Paul, since it already existed before they arrived there; and whatever Peter or Paul's role may have been in that community in the two or three years before their martyrdoms, there is inadequate historical evidence to say that they ruled that community as bishops, whether in name or in function. The most reputable modern historians are agreed on this point: "cannot be supported historically", "we have no information whatever", "nothing is known", "no trustworthy evidence", etc. Those who assert the contrary are making confessional claims, not historical ones. Harmakheru (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, Harmakheru, let's assume that all of the above is true... where does that leave us? It seems we are stuck on the connection between the Catholic Church and Peter/Paul. Let's let that go for now. Can we assert that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the original Christian community in Rome (leaving out the specific details of any leadership role played by Peter and Paul)? Can we assert that the Catholic Church represents one of the major continuations of the "church" founded by Jesus Christ (acknowledging that the Church in Jesus' time and in apostolic times bears little resemblance in structure to that of the Catholic Church)? In effect, the Catholic Church claims that it evolved from the early church of apostolic times. If we ignore the claims about "being the continuation of the Church founded in Rome by Peter and Paul", is there historical support for the base claim of continuity from the apostles to the present day? Even if we ignore the specific position of Peter and Paul as "Bishops of Rome", there is the assertion of a line of "Popes" from Linus, Anacletus and Clement I onwards. If this is not the "original Christian community in Rome", it is certainly the Christian community in Rome by the time we get to the 2nd century. --Richard (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardly any secular historians today would agree that Linus, Anacletus, or Clement were "popes"; this is a retrojection of later structures back into the first century, something which almost all Catholic historiography was infected with until the last fifty years or so. The monarchical episcopacy did not emerge at Rome until some time in the second century; instead there was a council of presbyters, which may well have had a presiding presbyter who was "first among equals"--but not a "bishop" in the modern sense of the term, and certainly not any kind of "pope". (This is why Ignatius of Antioch does not address or mention a "bishop" in his letter to Rome ca. AD 107, in contrast to his practice in his other letters. He couldn't, because there wasn't one.)

The Christian community at Rome in the mid-first century was by all accounts a variegated and contentious bunch, and it is unlikely that they would all have accepted any single person, even an apostle, as their leader. According to Clement, it was factionalism and rivalry within the Christian community at Rome that resulted in the deaths of Peter and Paul; Paul himself complains in his letters about the divisions in the Roman community, how some people resisted his teaching, how others preached Christ out of spite in order to get him into further trouble, and how almost everyone deserted him when he came to trial. The practical result of these divisions seems to have been that the Christian community at Rome was very nearly wiped out by the Neronian persecution, and had to be reconstituted as a viable community by the next generation. It is during this second phase, toward the end of the first century--after the "sudden misfortunes and repeated calamities" mentioned by Clement--that the Roman church intervenes in the Corinthian dispute and begins to exercise some measure of pastoral concern for the network of churches that were starting to call themselves the Catholic Church. It is also in this second phase that the Church at Rome consciously aligns itself with the persons and teachings of the martyrs Peter and Paul, and in that sense could be said to be "founded" on them in a way it had not been before. It is only from this point that the continuity between the See of Rome today and the See of Rome in ancient times can be demonstrated historically--a continuity shared collectively by all the churches of the early second century Catholic "network". Harmakheru (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Linus, Anacletus, and Clement were popes. The probably never heard the name Pope mentioned, because that is a popular title, used by people a lot later - a corruption of Patriarch. The New testament shows us Bishops being appointed for all the new communities, the idea that Rome was the only city without a Bishop, or that Peter and Paul - who appointed bishops elsewhere - failed to take on the role or appoint office-holders in Rome is sheer and unsupported speculation. Historicity is clear in the witness of the 100s AD and in the letter of Clement, written only decades after the deaths of the Apostles - in which Clement exercises authority not only as Bishop of Rome but beyond Rome, in Greece - as referenced in the article. It is also historical fact that far from being the mish-mash of disorganised motley rabble alleged by Harmakheru above, the Church of this time rejected and expelled heretical teachers such as Marcion and kept its doctrinal orthodoxy. Xandar 23:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, you wrote "It is also historical fact that far from being the mish-mash of disorganised motley rabble alleged by Harmakheru above, the Church of this time rejected and expelled heretical teachers such as Marcion and kept its doctrinal orthodoxy." On what source do you make this assertion? I think it would be wise to be conservative in using phrases such as "historical fact". It is a historical fact that Ignatius and Irenaeus wrote documents on which we have based some understanding of events which some have accepted as "historical fact". It's only an indisputable "historical fact" if no one disputes it. Church fathers such as Ignatius, Irenaeus and Eusebius are the only documentary evidence we have of certain facts about early Christianity. Just because they wrote it doesn't mean it's true. We should document any significant, notable challenges to the "mainstream" historical narrative without necessarily agreeing that the challenge is valid. (Not our job to establish who is "right"). --Richard (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, it's nice that you can parrot your Church's point of view so well, but sectarian propaganda is not the same thing as objective history. Contrary to what you would like to believe, the New Testament does not show bishops (in the modern sense of that word) being appointed for all the new communities; it shows presbyters being appointed--the equivalent of today's parish priests. The emergence of the monarchical episcopate is agreed by virtually all modern historians to be a later development which began in the East (Ignatius of Antioch being an early example) and propagated to the West over time, with Rome being one of the last cities to make the change. But if you believe that Peter and Paul can be demonstrated to have taken on the role of office-holders in Rome, and that they appointed bishops at Rome to succeed them in that office, then show us the proof--and explain why it is that all the reputable scholars I quoted above flatly disagree with your position. As for Rome being a "disorganized motley rabble" in those days (which isn't quite what I wrote--another example of your penchant for creating straw-man arguments and misrepresenting what others have said), the divisiveness and factionalism of the early Christians in Rome are clearly described by both Paul and Clement in their surviving letters, as I have already pointed out. Finally, dragging Rome's reaction to Marcion into the situation is frankly ridiculous, since (according to Wikipedia!) Marcion first arrived at Rome in the year 142--several generations after Peter and Paul were martyred, and long after the Roman Church had been reconstructed on a firmer foundation following the Neronian persecution. Part of the problem in all this is the Catholic tendency to read later events back into the church of the first century, and this is a perfect example of it. So is your claim that Clement exercised "authority" as "Bishop of Rome" over the church at Corinth. Nowhere in his letter does Clement ever identify himself as a "bishop", and in fact we know from the Shepherd of Hermas that Clement was more like a "corresponding secretary" whose job it was to transmit documents from the Roman church to other churches with which it was in communion--which is exactly what he appears to be doing in this case. To extrapolate from this to a determination that he was some kind of "pope" is to go way beyond the evidence. Harmakheru (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

So it seems that there are at least two different models of what the early Christian community in Rome was like. Harmakheru's model is a more recent model (although with some antecedents in Protestant scholarship) and I think that both models need to be presented with citations to reliable sources to support them. It would be really useful to find a source that actually makes an assertion as to which model is the mainstream model and which is the minority model. Xandar is clearly presenting the Catholic POV but it is one that I assert is also supported by most of mainstream Christianity except for some Protestants (that is, the Orthodox and many mainstream Protestant churches would assert that there was nothing wrong with the institution of elders and bishops in early Christianity but that things started to go really off the rails with the rise of an imperial Papacy). Thus, to assert that the Catholic Church had no direct connection to Peter/Paul but basically appropriated their legacy a couple hundred years after the fact is as much POV historical interpretation as the Catholic view. Our job is not to determine who is "right" but to present all POVs neutrally without giving undue weight to minority POVs. I think our major challenge is to come up with wording that presents the POVs, accurately characterizes which scholars are proponents of each view and indicates which are mainstream POVs and which are minority POVs. --Richard (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I don't know of anyone who is claiming that "the Catholic Church had no direct connection to Peter/Paul but basically appropriated their legacy a couple hundred years after the fact". That is certainly not my position. Clement is writing before the end of the first century, and he already shows the "appropriation" in process; it is well advanced by the time of Ignatius, and complete by Irenaeus. The definitive embrace of Peter and Paul as the "virtual" founders of the Church of Rome after the Neronian disaster is part of what makes it such a solid foundation in subsequent centuries, when it does become a bulwark against heresies of every sort; and the acceptance of Rome's claim in this respect by other churches contributes a great deal to its prestige and authority as these develop over the next several centuries. My objection is to the notion, which some here seem determined to get into the article somehow, that Peter and Paul walked into Rome, either created a Church there out of nothing or else took charge of the Church that was already there as if they were modern bishops taking possession of their See, proceeded to use their unquestioned episcopal authority to knock things into proper shape, and then appointed successors to hold the same powers after their deaths. There is simply no historical basis for any of this; it is a reading back into the first century of developments which did not actually happen until long afterward. Harmakheru (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Harmkheru, thanks for the explanation. I apologize for going off the rails with the "no direct connection to Peter/Paul" and "couple hundred years after the fact" remark... I've been doing a lot of Googling and reading a lot of stuff on websites (Catholic and not so Catholic). I think I was writing too quickly and didn't keep straight in my head what you wrote vs what other people wrote on their websites.

The key here is to stop making this a discussion of "Xandar says X" whereas "Harmakheru says Y". If I put what you wrote into any Wikipedia article, somebody would assuredly slap a {{citation needed}} tag on it. We need to get the points that you made into the mouths of reliable sources. We also need to figure out how to say how to distill all this down to what is absolutely necessary to have in this article and then figure out where to put the gory details for those that want to delve into the question. I took the liberty of inserting the quotations that you provided above in the article on Simon Peter under the section "Connection to Rome". You might check it out and see if you have any suggestions for improvement. At the same time, I think what you wrote above needs to be reflected in History of the Catholic Church, History of the Papacy and even See of Rome. However, we need better sourcing to deflect charges of original research.

--Richard (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the ideas I have put forward on this subject can be found in the books I've listed; I would also add Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, and John Reumann, eds., Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (Geoffrey Chapman, 1974), and probably the relevant articles in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, which is almost always helpful and authoritative. But I am not so much interested in getting my point of view into the article as I am in getting other people's out of it. What I particularly object to is when people try to attach a "many/most historians agree" claim to a sectarian position, cite two or three "sources" which do not actually support their position, and then demand that their claim be allowed to stand unless everyone else can prove them wrong to their satisfaction (which is probably never going to happen, since they already "know" they are right and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to dissuade them). That's not the way real scholarship is done; whatever their motives may be, it has the effect of hijacking Wikipedia into the service of sectarian apologetics, and that should not be allowed. Personally I think it would be better for everyone involved, and certainly better for Wikipedia, to simply leave most of the disputed points out entirely, instead of slugging it out sentence by sentence and word by word for years on end; if people feel the need to raise such issues at all, it seems to me that it is sufficient to state that there are differing viewpoints on the issue and to refer the reader to a "for further reading" section with a balanced list of sources they can consult and use to form their own opinion. The point of an encyclopedia is to give the reader access to a fair statement of the mainstream consensus on a topic. In most cases there is more than enough consensus material to fill up an article without having to get into all the gory details of the things that nobody agrees on. Harmakheru (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Harmakheru, I agree with most of what you wrote with the exception that, while this article is not the place to get into the gory details, I do think the articles such as the ones on Simon Peter and Early Christianity can benefit from a fuller exposition of the issues (not necessarily every detail but at least a broad overview). --Richard (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

One of my occasional interests in Wikipedia is historiography. Sometimes what I find interesting to document is not "historical fact" but the different ways in which history is interpreted by different parties at different times. It seems that there is a bit of evolving historiography regarding this narrative of Peter and Paul and the "founding" of the Church in Rome. I'm less interested in figuring out who is "right" and more interested in documenting which parties are proponents of which theories. After all, we're not supposed to be trying to determine what the truth is. --Richard (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea that Christianity was very diverse in early times isn't "recent". See Walter Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Philadelphia, 1971, translated from the German original published in 1934.

Since people are still arguing about the point, let me give you the 2 additional sources I threatened you with.

Cambridge History of Christianity, volume 1, 2006, page 405: "... Victor ... the lists of bishops guaranteeing apostolic authority seem to have been constructed in the same period."

page 417: "The general consensus among scholars has been that, at the turn of the first and second centuries, local congregations were led by bishops and presbyters whose offices were overlapping or indistinguishable."

page 418: "Probably there was no single 'monarchical' bishop in Rome before the middle of the second century ... and likely later."

Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1997 edition revised 2005, page 211: "It seems that at first the terms 'episcopos' and 'presbyter' were used interchangeably ..."

Peter jackson (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter, what I meant by "more recent" was "in the last 100 years or so". Compared to 2000 years of Church history, that's recent. "Not recent" would be stuff written by Eastern Orthodox bishops in the medieval period or Protestants during the Reformation. I think there were some Protestants of the Reformation period who did challenge papal authority on these grounds but I'd have to go back and research this to be sure. By comparison, Bauer's theories seem to be relatively recent developments.

Thank you for the quotes; I'm going to take the liberty of inserting them in appropriate articles such as Bishop, Presbyter and Early Christianity if they are not already there.

--Richard (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course the diversity of early Christianity can be documented from the New Testament record itself. The first three gospels give a significantly different view of Jesus than the fourth, although ultimately the Church decided to accept all of them (but not without a fight). The Book of Acts, although it attempts to tone things down to a more "eirenic" account, admits conflicts between Hebrews and Hellenists, Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, Pharisaic Christians and non-Pharisaic Christians. The letters of Paul, Peter, John, and Jude all testify to intra-Church conflicts over both leadership and theology, sometimes resulting in schisms and mutual anathemas; and the Book of Revelation tells a similar story. Far from being an ideal model of Christian unity, the first century Church was a battleground of competing personalities and competing ideologies--and according to Clement, it was precisely this kind of conflict which led to the deaths of Peter and Paul at Rome, and the slaughter of a "vast multitude" of Roman Christians at the hand of Nero. Harmakheru (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) If I remember right, Michael Grant's Saint Peter: A Biography, written in the late 1990's, said something to the effect that there is no good reason to doubt Peter's status in Rome as leader. Granted, there isn't a lot of contemporary evidence, but the same thing has been said about the very historicity of Jesus, and few people today argue that as a basis for saying Jesus never existed. I will try to find the exact quote, but there's only one copy that I know of in town and it is circulated as often as not. Now, whether that means that the Roman Church is the one founded by Jesus is still a question, but it does call into question the status of the word "many" in this context. But, I know this is kind of a waste of time without the sourcing, although I don't know how quickly it will be available. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Grant has written popularizations of all of ancient history; he is one step up from a coffee-table book - but here he is seriously out of his field, even if your memory is correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I got Grant's book when it was first published, and there were so many things wrong with it that I got rid of it. He's not a credible source on this topic. Harmakheru (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Some anonymous editor just changed "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the original Christian community founded by Jesus" to "The Church is the continuation ..." Someone want to undo this? Harmakheru (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Harmakheru himself is operating under a presumption that the relatively recent theories of the "development" of episcopacy and "the first century Church was a battleground of competing personalities and competing ideologies", are correct, and that the traditional accounts are false. This can be read in the very assumptions within his posts, and his denigration of any writer having an oposoing view. The solid evidence for these assumptions is scant, and seems to consist of exagerrating the extent and importance of disputes such as those mentioned in the NT. The alleged "overlap" between bishops and presbyters also seems irrelevant to the current argument. At least it is now admitted that the historical line of bishops goes back at least to circa 150 AD, within a lifetime of Peter and Paul. Let's remember that what we are talking about at the moment is the LEAD, not the main text of the article. As such a sentence on historicity needs to be brief, compact, and not smothered with cavills, details and controversies (which 99% of readers will not be concerned with in any event). As such, to present the position in terms of the views of "many historians" is hard to better. The word "many" admits that there are variant views without requiring the need to present such views in the lead, since people interested in this issue will read the relevant article section. All that is needed in the lead is a sentence that states that many historians trace the origin of the Church to the time of Peter. Much of the rest of the debate is irrelevant as regards the LEAD. We do not require to decide whether Peter was ordained bishop in a pointy hat, whether he was "monarchical", whether there was dissent in the Roman Church or not. I would disagree with Harmakheru on many of these points. However, while these may all be interesting topics, they are not for the lead. So lets just look at that one sentence. Xandar 00:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dies annorum nostrorum in ipsis septuaginta anni (Psalms 90:10). 150 AD is within a full life of Domitian, not Nero; and if there were a single Bishop of Rome under Antoninus Pius, that proves no more about the constitution of the Church of Rome in Nero's time than the present Constitution of Italy proves about its government 84 years ago, in 1925.

Insisting on century-old scholarship when modern writing disagrees is not helpful; indeed, the propositions Xandar would contest are older than that, going back to the first applications of source criticism and historiographic analysis to the problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Xandar, you've got it exactly backwards. I myself am a convert to Catholicism; I have a considerable amount of experience teaching scripture and patristics, and I spent more time than I like to remember doing Catholic apologetics. As part of that, I spent years trying to find some way to square the traditional accounts with the surviving documents, and I simply couldn't do it. Many Catholic scholars in the past fifty years have had the same difficulties, which is why they have largely abandoned the traditional view in favor of the modern scholarly consensus which I have been describing. I do not "denigrate any writer having an opposing view"; I simply ask that they know what they are talking about and honestly follow the evidence wherever it leads. I do point it out, rather forcefully at times, when advocates of opposing views refuse to engage the evidence and arguments that are offered against their position, and insist that their point of view must be accepted as correct simply because they say so. I have offered a long list of sourced quotations from reputable scholars in support of my position; your response has been to dismiss major players in the field as "fringe historians" who can't possibly be right simply because they disagree with you. If anyone is "denigrating any writer with an opposing view", it is you, not me.

With respect to the "many historians" gambit you and Nancy keep trying to play, it is unacceptable because it does not accord with the facts and conveys the wrong impression to the reader. First, you have not demonstrated that "many" historians, or for that matter any historians, actually support your position; even the sources you provided simply don't say what you want them to say. Second, the opposite of "many" is "few", and by characterizing the balance this way you leave the impression that the bulk of legitimate historical opinion is on your side of the divide, with only a handful of "fringers" disagreeing. This is simply not the case; if anything, the balance goes very much the other way, with "many historians" flatly disagreeing with you, and only a handful taking the position you want to characterize as the majority opinion. Finally, as you yourself point out, the lead is not the place to put these sorts of "on the one hand, on the other hand" issues where scholarly opinion may be divided. If that sort of issue is going to be raised at all, it should be much deeper into the article, and handled with a much greater level of detail than could possibly be justified in the lead. Harmakheru (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Harmakheru, you have to try to convince us you are correct by giving us decent quotes and sources to oppose ours. All you have done is provide sources that dispute points not mentioned in the article text but you have no sources that object to article text. Talking long and hard does not win editors over to your point of view. You need sources, links, go to googlebooks and do some research. Nothing you have said here wipes away what our sources clearly state. We have National Geographic saying that historians - with an s - looked back after the position of pope was institionalized - well that happened centuries ago. We also provide two examples of modern scholars who agree with the Catholic version of its own history. This is not theology they are stating, this is history, these quotes are in university presses written by scholars - modern historians - who are writing about the history of the Catholic Church. Norman's quote comes from a section entitled "Catholic Origins". We have to respect their views and respect Reader's right to know that "many" historians have viewed Catholic history this way. Not to do so would clearly be unencyclopedic. NancyHeise ^talk 02:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, Hamakheru really does seem to know what he's talking about, and certainly knows the difference between a scholarly and a non-scholarly text. (I advise against your continuing to push National Geographic for instance.) If I were you, I'd work with him rather than against him. Editing on Wikipedia isn't, or shouldn't be, a competition. When it becomes antagonistic, the articles generally suffer, as is attested by the long and involved history of this particular article. So enough of this "yours" and "ours." Collaborative editing is the way to go, and Hamakheru is clearly a good person with whom to collaborate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JB and Harmakheru, but I disagree. Our sources say what they say. No amount of arguing is going to change the fact that they say what they say. All we have done is put the info on the page. National Geographic is not a Catholic POV source, perhaps some would argue it is the opposite. The overview it provides is supplemented by two other modern scholars who also agree. I can not ignore this and I haven't. No one has asked me to until now. If there are some bad reviews of our sources - let's see them. Hamakheru has suggested there are scholars with opposing viewpoints - great - we have mentioned this in the article text already. He just keeps telling us the same thing over and over and it is something we have already covered. I can't cover it more than it is already without violating WP:undue. NancyHeise ^talk 04:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy wrote "National Geographic is not a Catholic POV source". This assertion would carry more weight if the NG book were a publication which espoused a viewpoint that is the official position of the National Geographic Society or had been vetted for historical accuracy by National Geographic. However, if it is, as Harmakheru characterizes it, a compendium of POV writings written by proponents of various religions, the neutrality and objectivity of the NGS cannot be invoked in support of those POV writings. It appears that the book is designed to present a wide spectrum of POVs from the perspective of various global religions. Let us not try to make it into something that it is not. --Richard (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I am well aware of how to do research--enough to know that yanking out-of-context snippets out of Google Books is not "research", it is "prooftexting". If you want to understand what a book or article is saying, you generally need to have the entire book or article in front of you, either online or in hardcopy, so you can see the entire context. Then you have to actually consider that context, and not ignore it in search of little snippets that appear to say what you want but, in context, may not. This is the problem with all three of the citations you offer for your statement about "many historians"--in context, none of them says what you what it to say.

The Norman quote does come from a section entitled "Catholic Origins"--but if you back up to the previous section, you will see that the "Catholic Origins" section is immediately preceded by a statement that what follows is "a few paragraphs on how Catholics understand the essentials of their Faith." (p. 9.) Thus, by the author's own admission, the statements you quote are not objective history, but Catholic confessional beliefs. They are thus admissible as a scholarly summary of "what Catholics believe", but not as a scholarly summary of what is objectively true as a matter of history. You can't simply treat these two very different kinds of statements as if they were both making the same kinds of claims. They aren't.

The Wilken quote from the National Geographic coffee-table book is of the same order. Wilken is not writing an objective history of what actually happened; he is telling us about what Catholics believe happened. You can tell this by his unqualified statements about Jesus walking on water (p. 274) and being "the promised Messiah" (p. 276), which is not the kind of thing that any reputable historian would write as historical fact. As for his statement that "once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome", the "historians" he is talking about are not modern academic historians, who almost universally reject the idea of Peter as the first pope. He is talking about Catholic ecclesiastical historians, who are reading later institutions back into the first century in support of a confessional position.

As for your third reference, the one from Derrett, he says nothing at all about the Catholic Church being founded by Jesus; he implies only that in his opinion Christianity was in some sense founded by Jesus, which is not at all the same thing--and later on he also indicates that in his view Jesus would have rejected major elements of Catholicism, including its hierarchical organization and its priesthood. And he says nothing at all about what "many historians" believe on this matter--only that "some" hold one view and "others" hold another, which lends no support to the sort of quantification you are trying to impose.

So when your citations are examined closely, none of them actually end up supporting the statement you are using them to support--which is very "unencyclopedic" indeed. Harmakheru (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You are the one taking things out of context. I will cite this example: Norman's book, a university press, is discussing the history of the Roman Catholic Church (part of its title). The book begins with an introduction followed by a section entitled Catholic Origins. Separate sentences discuss Catholic belief in the first paragraph. These are not intertwined with statements of historical fact which follow in the second paragraph. The statement we use to support our article text is in this second paragraph which states " The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime. .....It was Jesus who sent out seventy missioners to declare his message, as the biblical accounts record, and who commissioned twelve men to be his immediate representatives in the campaigne for universal salvation. The letters of St. Paul, in the New Testament, occasionally employ military symbolism to convey the sense of militancy that this task evoked. It was urgent work, ..." Please provide some link to some source that says this is not discussing history but strictly theology as you allege. You have no source that states this and I can not just take your word for it - the passage clearly lists the authors reasons for stating that Jesus was the founder of the Church. Also, please point me to the Wikipedia policy that defines "coffee table book" - I point you to WP:RS and WP:reliable source examples that uphold National Geographic and its scholarly authors whose work is edited and reviewed by more scholars and experts. Derrett stands on his own, I have provided a sufficiently long quote in the ref to show he is giving us an overview of scholarly views, including his own, that supports article text summarizing these views. NancyHeise ^talk 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, do you actually have Norman's book? If so, then please place it in front of you and open it. Turn to page 9, which is the last page of the introduction. Look at the last paragraph on that page. That paragraph ends: "The book begins with a few paragraphs on how Catholics understand the essentials of their Faith. This is, surely, itself essential in understanding something of the manner in which the Church has presented its priorities." That ends the introduction, and prepares us for what follows in the next chapter. The next chapter begins on page 11. The first paragraph, which we have been led by the author to believe is the start of "a few paragraphs on how Catholics understand the essentials of their Faith", begins, "After the Resurrection ..." OK, that's one paragraph. Now move on to the second paragraph, which is still within the range of the "few paragraphs" we were promised. It begins, "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime." There is the statement you want us to rely on--right smack in the middle of the "few paragraphs" which the author himself describes as expressing "how Catholics understand the essentials of their Faith". It couldn't be any clearer than that. Your own source explicitly states that the sentence you are quoting is a statement of "how Catholics understand their Faith", which means it is not intended as a "statement of historical fact". Can you really not comprehend this? Harmakheru (talk)

I suppose, if the author were not a Catholic convert, I would agree with you. He is speaking as a Catholic historian expressing what Catholics believe to be the origin of the Church. He does not say that those views are invalid historically. He also gives us the historical documents that support this view as I quoted for you above. Just as National Geographic did not gloss over the fact that there are many Catholic historians who trace the origins of the Church to Jesus' consecration of Peter, neither have we. You are asking us to ignore a common, well known fact agreed by many historians, more than a few of them priest professors of Catholic history. Please provide a link to something that says this view is less valid historically than the opposing view. Please provide a link to some policy on Wikipedia that would allow me to ignore the Catholic view including those of Catholic historians. NancyHeise ^talk 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the validity of the National Geographic book, I assume you are referring to this: "A recent trend is a proliferation of specialized encyclopedias on historical topics. These are edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles, and then review each article for quality control." But the question then arises, how much "review" and "quality control" is being exercised by the editors? In this case, as I have already pointed out (not that it did any good), the primary editors have no recognized expertise in the area of Christianity; and the other members of the Board of Advisers are Desmond Tutu and his daughter, two specialists on Hinduism, two specialists on Buddhism, a specialist on Islam, and a rabbi. So where are the "experts" who are supposed to "review each article for quality"? They do not exist. And that may explain why this book, which you tout as your primary source on this subject, only has three citations in Google Scholar, as opposed to the hundreds of citations which GS reports for the authorities I'm relying on. Harmakheru (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS does not give us a number of cites on Google scholar to tell us how many is enough. The fact that the work is written by a professor of history and published by a National Geographic as their premier choice to explain Christianity is enough of an endorsement needed to satisfy Wikipedia policy. Further, WP:NPOV requires us to include both points of view - thus we have to include the Catholic point of view. I offer these random selections found on Google books to show that other scholars throughout history agree page 103 of this source[6] page 45 of this source: [7] Honestly, I think it is amazing that you are challenging me on this, I can't believe there are people who do not know that historians - both modern and otherwise - agree with the Church's take on the history of its own origins. NancyHeise ^talk 05:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh and here's another one that also supports the "many" historians point of view see [8] NancyHeise ^talk 05:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, this is truly pathetic. I can't believe you are offering a Catholic apologetic tract--and one published in 1840, at that--as a legitimate scholarly source about the state of the debate today. Once again, you're just cherry-picking prooftexts out of Google Books without any comprehension of what does and does not constitute valid scholarship, or even whether what you're citing actually does support your position. Anything that looks on first glance like it says what you want it to say, you trot it out as if it were golden. This is not how real scholarship is done. Harmakheru (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me? Catholicism by Richard P. McBrien, quoted by Nancy above is a major work of scholarship, reprinted several times, and which has been criticised for NOT following Vatican mores. The review from Library Journal states "Throughout, McBrien is faithful to tradition and to contemporary scholarship; he does not hesitate to raise probing questions and to suggest needed changes in teaching and practices. Human existence, God, Jesus Christ, the Church, the sacraments, Christian morality, and Christian spirituality all receive intensive treatment; Orthodox and Protestant views receive respectful consideration. Essential for all libraries, including those with earlier editions." Other reviews state: "No less indispensable now than was its predecessor." (Nicholas Lash, Cambridge University.) .... "Now McBrien has even surpassed his previous achievement, and has ensured the continued service of this modern classic." (Thomas H. Groome, Boston College) ...."The clearest and most competent guide in the English language to the Catholic Church's origins, teaching, traditions, and developments." (Gerald O'Collins, S.J., Gregorian University). Nancy also quoted "The Roman Catholic church: its origins and nature" By John F. O'Grady is also a serious modern historical view. Not only writers that agree with you constitute scholarship.

However once again I have to say, lets see something more constructive from the detractors of the existing text. All I have heard so far is that we abandon giving the reader all information about the historic origin of the Church. That is not really a policy. Xandar 00:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Read what I wrote: "a Catholic apologetic tract ... published in 1840." Was McBrien's book published in 1840? If not, then obviously that's not the one I'm referring to. Was O'Grady's? If not, then obviously that's not the one I'm referring to. The one I'm referring to is the first one on Nancy's list: The pillar and foundation of truth, by Giovanni Battista Pagani, published in 1840. That this is a Catholic apologetic tract and not a work of scholarship is evidenced by the fact that the book itself summarizes its points under two heads: "1. That Christ established in his Church a visible and infallible authority to preserve his doctrine, and teach it to mankind until the consummation of the ages. 2. That such authority continues, and will continue for ever, in the Catholic Church." That Nancy can seriously offer such a source as proof that "other scholars throughout history agree" with her claims, is in itself sufficient proof that she simply can't tell the difference between scholarship and apologetics. Apparently neither can you. And that, in a nutshell, is the whole problem with what's going on here. Harmakheru (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whore of Babylon

Since we seem constrained to operate under Xandar and Nancy's rules--i.e., "I found a snippet in Google Books that says what I want, and that's enough to satisfy Wikipedia rules"--I propose that we add "Whore of Babylon" alongside "Roman Catholic Church" as one of the recognized names of the Catholic Church. Here's my source: [9]

True, it's a bit dated, but it's got footnotes and everything, and one of the footnotes says exactly what I need it to say: "Rome is not the universal Church, nor any sound part thereof: but the whore of Babylon, the seat of Antichrist." Lots and lots of people have believed this for centuries, and we have no right to censor a common, well known fact agreed by many historians, more than a few of them pastor professors of church history. WP:NPOV requires us to include all points of view, so I assume there will be no objections to this proposal from the Catholic side. Harmakheru (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, now, Harmakheru... there's no need for that. You're just getting pointy. I understand your frustration but let's not get ridiculous. --Richard (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My proposal (which of course was not meant to be taken seriously) is no more ridiculous than Nancy's attempt to prove that Jesus founded the Catholic Church by citing an apologetic tract written by some Catholic priest in the nineteenth century. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; if she can stoop to that level of silliness and get away with it, why can't I?

As it happens, I teach at a world-class research university with tens of thousands of students, and thousands of top-notch faculty, drawn from all over the world; our people are on the cutting edge of almost every discipline, and their findings make the news several times each week. Our students are always asking if they can use Wikipedia, but most of my colleagues have such contempt for it that they simply forbid their students to use it. Until now I have been somewhat more lenient in my classes, but after my experiences of the past several days I am going to have to re-think my position. The notion of collaborative editing is fine as long as all the players are genuinely willing to collaborate; but apparently all it takes to derail that process is for a couple of determined ideologues to park themselves on a subject area and refuse to budge no matter what. Their sources may be worthless and their arguments absurd, but short of spending vast amounts of time and energy in agonizing procedural battles there is apparently nothing that can be done about them. Maybe some people have nothing better to do with their lives than to play these sorts of games, but I'm not one of them. Harmakheru (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if you do try the "procedural battles" there's no guarantee you'd succeed. Wikipedia simply has no effective system for enforcing its contents policies. It's a matter of luck whether you can get them observed in any particular case. That's why I stopped editing articles a year ago & confine myself to occasional comments. Peter jackson (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Peter jackson)

Unfortunately, I agree with what Peter wrote.

I'm sorry you feel that way although I acknowledge that you have every right to do so. Wikipedia is very informative. As I like to say, "I learn a lot from Wikipedia... some of it is even true." If I were you, I would advise your students that Wikipedia articles must always be taken with a grain of salt. The ultimate responsibility for determining the truth value of an assertion made by a Wikipedia article lies with the reader. Your experience here should give you ample proof that, at any given time one or more assertions in an article may be suspect. As for "agonizing procedural battles", all I can say is "you ain't seen nothing yet". Getting your way on a Wikipedia article can be extremely time-consuming. I could hope for more collaboration and collegiality but sometimes it's there and sometimes it ain't. I hope you will continue to contribute where you can as your input so far has been very valuable. --Richard (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I really do think this section is typical of Harmakheru's dramatics and his mispresentation of the situation. He has come to the page adding to someone else's objection to the usage of a sentence in the lead, and then changed the basis of the argument to claiming tht historians deny that the Catholic Church is indeed the Church founded in Rome at the time of Peter. I have asked him and other objectors to come up with suggestions for a referenced sentence that covers the historic origin as they see it. I even backed splitting the current sentence in two as Richard suggested, to aid this - but we have had nothing in response but attempts to rubbish various sources used in the article, and suggestions to eliminate the information we have, and not mention the topic! I don't think that is an improvement. The idea that wanting a clear statement about the historic origin of the Church in the article can be compared to the discussion of a purely theological concept like the whore of Babylon, is astonishing. Xandar 00:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Testing the validity of sources is not "rubbishing" them--it is what real scholars do. Real scholars do not allow someone to just offer up anything that suits their fancy and say, "See, I have a source!" Nancy apparently thinks that a Catholic apologetic tract from 1840 constitutes a reliable source simply because Google Books turned it up when she searched for the words "Jesus founded the Catholic Church". And indeed the book she cites does make that claim--but in the same paragraph it goes on to state as equally certain that Jesus "appointed in his Church a visible, perpetual, and infallible authority." Are you now going to insist that we add that to the article as well, simply because Nancy has a "source" that says this? Your whole approach to this issue is unacceptable from a scholarly standpoint. In your mind it is an established fact that Jesus founded the Catholic Church, and so that becomes the default "truth" which everyone else must agree to unless they can disprove it. But this is not how scholarship works, and it's not supposed to be how Wikipedia works. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the ones who dispute it. If you want to put something in the article, especially something that other people will disagree with, then you have to provide a credible source to back it up. Apologetic tracts from 1840 don't do the job. Neither do statements taken out of their context and pressed into duty to support positions that their authors did not intend to support. Neither do confessional claims yanked out of their context and gussied up to look like historical facts. And so far, that's all you've got. Harmakheru (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting again...

Without disagreeing with anything that Harmakheru has asserted, I am now wondering if we haven't gone off the rails with the discussion in the section immediately above. I have rearranged the flow in the "Origin and Mission" section so as to provide a more logical and chronological presentation of ideas. I have also worked to place citations immediately after the assertion that they support.

Please review my edit and indicate whether this addresses the concerns that we have been discussing.

--Richard (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. You still haven't addressed Harmakheru's point that the Norman quotation has been taken out of context, or mine that in any case it's talking about the Pope, not the Catholic Church. Peter jackson (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Karanacs' recent edit may have resolved these. We may have an irrelevant source or two now, but I do not see anything to dispute in what the text now states; it claims to describe what Roman Catholic doctrine is, and does so. The only quibble I see is the claim that all doctrine derives from the seven General Councils, and that's not worth greater length. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I only removed the bit about historians from the lead, as I think consensus is fairly well-established now that this doesn't belong in the lead and is inaccurate. I think, though, that Richard is discussing the text in the Origins and Mission section. Karanacs (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. The origin of the Church belongs in the lead. Xandar 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be these quotations;

• The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime.
• ... 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.

The first is a theological claim, and apparently presented as such in the source; the second is about the origins of Christianity. One of the problems of this article is the inability of some editors to see the difference. I have applied your sweeping precedent; the flow seems to work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a strange determination among some contributors to try to deny the virtually incontrovertible fact that the Church of Peter's lifetime in Rome continued on to be the (Roman) Catholic Church of today. That's not theology, it's simple fact. Xandar 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If so, then why has it been so hard for you and Nancy to come up with examples of modern mainstream historians who clearly say this? If it really is a "virtually incontrovertible fact", then it should be a simple matter to find plenty of incontrovertible support for it. An hour's work in a good research library--or even on Google Books--ought to do the trick. Instead, you offer us stuff from National Geographic and nineteenth-century apologetic tracts. To those who don't already agree with your position, the fact that you two are having so much trouble coming up with credible sources to support your position suggests that you really don't have any--and perhaps that no such sources exist. Harmakheru (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

on consensus and the lead

Xandar, "facts" need sources. Numerous sources have been presented to show that the statement in the lead is false or biased. No decent sources have been presented to back up the claim. Furthermore, you are editing against consensus. It is quite clear in the range of discussions on this page that you and Nancy are the only editors who believe that this information belongs in the lead worded as is. On the other hand, 7 editors have expressed concern with this (me, Richard, PMAnderson, Harmakheru, Peter Jackson, Afterwriting, and Gimmetrow. This is a very clear consensus against including this information in the lead. I am removing this information one last time. It should not be re-added until it is obvious on the talk page that consensus has changed. Karanacs (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the edit-warring continues, I will ask an uninvolved admin to review the situation. That may lead to protection of the page or blocking of users. Karanacs, as much as I agree with you about the consensus running against Xandar and NancyHeise, I should comment that nobody's hands are clean in an edit-war. It takes two (or more) to edit war. My recommendation is that you not become the "enforcer" of the consensus as it makes you look no less guilty than Xandar. --Richard (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and have no intention of further working with this section of the lead. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would suggest either an RfC, which would be problematic because of the potential of several Catholics unbalancing the !votes, or adopting some sort of phrasing similar to that of Britannica, saying that the elements associated with the Catholic church seem to have existed from the early years of Christianity, but leaving alone the question as to whether those elements are sufficient to say that the Church itself can be traced back through them to those days. The exact phrasing would still be problematic. My own best guess, and it's only a first draft, would be something like, "Catholics trace the foundation of the church to Jesus himself. Most modern historians, however, while acknowledging that the elements of the church can be traced back to the beginnings of Christianity, stop short of saying that the presence of those elments is sufficient to say that the Church itself can be traced to those times." Feel free to suggest alternate forms if you think they would be preferable. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would leave out the to produce while acknowledging that elements of the church can be traced back to the beginnings of Christianity; talk about "the elements" will lead some readers to suppose that we are discussing communion in both kinds, and lead others to argue about what the elements are, something about which there is profound disagreement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would urge that we leave the lead as it was after Karanacs deleted the bit about "a view shared by many historians". As currently written, it's not wrong although it accomplishes that by being silent on what historians think of what the Catholic Church believes (or used to believe). Instead, I think we should devote our energies to accurately depicting both the current and past views of historians in the "Origins and mission" section. Once we can agree on what the detailed exposition should say, then writing the summary for the lead should be a lot easier. --Richard (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would advise against an RFC at this time because the text of "Origin and mission" is so much in flux. An RFC is more likely to be successful if you can distill the issue down to a specific question which can be answered "Yes"/"No" or "A"/"B"/"C". Once again, let's hash out what we think "Origin and mission" should say. If we get to a point where we are stuck on a few narrow questions, then let's consider issuing an RFC. --Richard (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Stating the lead is "false and biased" is outrageous. Quoting a few liberal revisionists to try to deny historical fact is an extreme of silliness. The simple fact that the detractors from the information being presented on the historical origins of the Church have been unable, after repeated challenges, to produce a referenced sentence supporting their viewpoint, shows how tendentious it is. I'm sorry that some people don't like certain authors, and wish to deny the fact that the Church is directly and historically continupus with the Church headed by Peter and Paul in Rome, but we cannot censor that information. I have tried to get objectors to constructively work out some sort of compromise on the wording, but certain people just seem to want to eliminate information that they don't like. No consensus has been developed to remove the stated information from the lead, since no such question has been put. All we have seen is sniping at sources. Xandar 21:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, multiple sources have been put forth that specifically state that historians (plural) do not agree with this point. Specifically, see Talk:Catholic Church#O'Grady (and others) vs. Xandar and Nancy and Talk:Catholic Church#McBrien vs. Xandar and Nancy on the Origins of the Church below. Also, there is pretty clear evidence here that the sources cited in the lead do not reflect what the lead says. Can you provide any sources that actually state that "many historians agree" that the Catholic Church beliefs about its origins are historical fact? Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And #towards a resolution, above. The sections Karanacs cites chiefly discuss two authors which Xandar and Nancy have brought into the discussion; I have myself quoted an eminent Catholic theologian who says explicitly that nothing can be said with certainty about Peter's stay in Rome other than that he suffered martyrdom. Is Father Castelot a "liberal revisionist"?

The following is core policy: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.... The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. We are not the Polish diet; we have no liberum veto; no editor is entitled to insist that unsourced information remain in an article by refusing to join a consensus.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No. We're getting some shady work here. A) We have not had a consensus formed to remove the information. Posting five enormous posts per day shows one has a great deal of time, but it does not constitute the formation of a consensus. B) We have had several people chiming in and challenging references for different reasons. Nancy supplied some other references, and (as I predicted) these were immediately rubbished too. That's why I was more interested in trying to find a sentence that people felt they COULD reference. However this challenge has been ignored. Nancy has not even had time to respond to the claims against her latest references before people leap in to try to ignore them! That is not the way to proceed. Xandar 22:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed there is shady work:

• There is no need for consensus to remove information which has no unambiguous reliable source; there never has been.
• This is a wiki. If Nancy responds and convinces anyone, any action can be reversed.

And I should like to see an answer to Mamlujo's question below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has not participated in this dispute perhaps I could offer some input. No doubt, as Xandar maintains, there are many scholars who assert that the Catholic Church is the same church founded by Jesus and headed by Peter - I have read them. Karanacs and Septentrionalis point out that many scholars, Catholics included, do not agree. This is also true. Still, this does not refute Xandar's point that many (not most or all) hold the position. Although, Xandar's position is factually correct, it would seem he would have to have a source which says that, otherwise is merely synthesis. My feeling is why does the article need to say that many scholars hold the position. Why not just say the Church holds that position. Mamalujo (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have warned Xandar against edit warring. At the moment, the sentiment of the community of editors on this page seems to be running 5-2 against inclusion of the text in question. That suggests that the text should be removed, if only temporarily, until a consensus can be formed for replacement text. As has been pointed out, the article is not harmed by the removal of the text and it can be re-inserted when and if a consensus can be formed to do so It may be that an RFC may ultimately be necessary to help resolve this question.

I am going to revert Xandar's edit and reinstate Karanacs' deletion of the text in question. I enjoin all editors to refrain from edit warring. Everything in Wikipedia can be undone. If a consensus ultimately decides to reinstate the disputed text or some variant of it, it's no big deal that the text was temporarily deleted from the article. If no such consensus is formed then insistence on keeping the text in question is against Wikipedia policies of sourcing and consensus. The next occurrence of edit warring will result in a report to WP:AN/EW.

--Richard (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I check in here every once in a while to try to help...but if you guys and gals are reduced to quibbling over the use of "primarily", "usually", and "often"...(all of which are vague adverbs and should not be included in this article if it ever hopes to become Featured, anyway)...then there is no point grinding over theological and historical issues that really matter. Most of the detail for the first 3 centuries of the church, for example, should be in the realm of another article with a summary of that article and its highlights used here. Church historians will maintain an unbroken line of Popes from Peter through Benedict XVI. Atheists, agnostics, and protestants will suggest otherwise and point to flimsy written records, etc. The size constraints of this article prevent all sides of the issue from being properly represented, and there is merit to all points of view. But if we're still quibbling over which vague adverb to use when talking about the name...we're going to get nowhere, fast. Or slow...--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is little hope of it deserving FA in any case; but usually is a claim about all the millions of documents the church has produced; it cannot be substantiated by quoting half-a-dozen which use one name or the other. It requires a secondary source; which (if it is true), should not be difficult.

But there is a far more serious problem with this post. This is not a contest between good Catholic history and "atheists, agnostics, and protestants"; it is a context between good history - from all sources, including Roman Catholics, who have been outstanding in Christian historiography - and writing which confuses historical and theological claims. The apostolic succession is a theological claim; many hold it who are not Roman Catholic; but granting it does not involve any assertion as to what office Saint Peter (or Linus or Clement) actually held, when, and who consecrated him to it. There is no sufficient evidence on that, and a historian will say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth quoting the New Catholic Encyclopedia on Saint Peter, after a summary of the Gospels and of Acts:

It is quite certain that Peter spent his last years in Rome. The first of the two epistles ascribed to him was written from "Babylon," a code name for Rome. It is, however, impossible to say how long he stayed there. An old tradition that he spent 25 years in Rome is quite unacceptable. All that can be said with certainty is that he went to Rome and was martyred there.

Is Fr. John J. Castelot, Sacrae Theologiae Doctor, an atheist, an agnostic, or a Protestant? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My point, exactly! Thanks, Pam!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed that one of the statements Castelot does not make (and continues to not make in the rest of the section) is what Peter did in Rome, before his martyrdom? (He quotes Papias that St. Mark's Gospel is St. Peter's preaching, but does not endorse it.) Other scholars, including Roman Catholics, may well differ on the authenticity of 1 Peter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, one point of view (but not the only one) that should be included (in an article about the Early Church...which should then be summarized and brought here). FWIW, will you want to include what he says in Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church, which he translated sometime after the Catholic Encyclopedia entry? Keep on being productive...next we can hash out the meaning of the word:"is".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the dominant and consensus point of view on Saint Peter (among scholars of all faiths): we do not know; there is no credible source. (If this is about 1 Peter, I agree it does not belong here; but heither POV on it is "the Catholic position", either.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Historically you are right...there is only so much we know from written history.--Mike Here is the "Catholic" position, from the Catechism:

"When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them." Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another." "The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope." "The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403- Μολὼν λαβέ 23:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this paragraph is well worth a close look. Note how carefully it is worded, and the issues it tiptoes around. Not a word about the length of Peter's stay in Rome or his martyrdom there (or even whether he was ever in Rome at all). Not a word about his alleged exercise of the episcopal office there, or his co-founding of the Roman Church. Not a word about how any of these things constitute the basis of the Pope's claim to be Peter's successor. The very silence of this paragraph on so many issues that used to be considered central to papal authority is itself eloquent testimony to the huge shift in Catholic thought on this subject in the last fifty years. Harmakheru (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. What it does say is that Peter was head of the College of Apostles, and that the authority of the present Pope and of (properly ordained) bishops descends from the Apostles. Neither is a purely historical statement - the first being in part a question of definition and of the interpretation of Christ's words. The second does not require any specific chain of descent, merely that there was one - like St. George (again), who, when, and where is known to God, but not to us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me make clear my position: the article should certainly include (as it does) that these two claims are the Roman Catholic position; they are. It should certainly not claim or suggest that they are historically impossible or unlikely - they are not (a lack of written evidence is neither, and can be dealt with here by silence).

And I think that's the bare minimum of what should be required here. This also goes back to the whole naming convention of CC vs RCC, in that it's the Petrine Primacy that gives the name RCC. I think we're on the same track as far as that goes. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Other Christians will disagree with the two claims insofar as they are theology, but that should be discussed in their articles, not here.

Please note that the presbyter-bishops discussed by O'Grady are perfectly compatible with apostolic succession; indeed, they help make it more practical in the first century. A new bishop in Rome could be consecrated by the other Roman bishops; there was no need to bring in bishops from Naples or Corinth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I could get to Noort's Dogmatic Theology with some difficulty; others will not have such access. Can you quote or summarize? (Catalogs suggest Castelot translated it in 1955, btw. - beware of reprint dates.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

McBrien vs. Xandar and Nancy on the Origins of the Church

Earlier on this page, Xandar has argued that Richard McBrien's book Catholicism is "a major work of scholarship" which we should take seriously, and Nancy alleges that it supports her position that "Jesus founded the Catholic Church." Well, let's see what McBrien actually says.

McBrien does take up the issue on p. 34, and in his discussion he does use the words, "The Bible also tells us how Jesus founded a Church and invested it with full authority to teach, rule, and sanctify", and further, "The Catholic Church alone can trace its history back to the time of the apostles and to the Lord himself." But again, context is everything. He precedes these words by explaining that what he is about to present is "Catholic apologetics" whose "argument was constructed as follows". He then gives the apologetic argument ... and rejects it as inadequate. So what Nancy and Xandar are adducing as support for their position is actually, when read in context, a rejection of it.

So what does McBrien positively say on the subject? For this we have to turn to much later in the book, where he explicitly asks and answers the hard questions:

"Did Jesus intend to found a Church? The answer is "No" if by found we mean some direct, explicit, deliberate act by which Jesus established a new religious organization. The answer is "Yes" if by found we mean "lay the foundations for" the Church in various indirect ways. In this second case, it is preferable to speak of the Church as having its origin in Jesus rather than as having been founded by Jesus." (p. 577) And just to hammer the point home, he begins the next section with the title, 'Jesus did not "found" the Church'.

Well, that's pretty clear. And it offers no support whatever to the position being pushed by Xandar and Nancy as an "incontrovertible fact" which absolutely must be in the article.

It should also be noted that McBrien repeatedly cites Raymond Brown (more than a dozen times by my count) as one of the authorities he relies on and recommends to others--the same Raymond Brown whom Xandar dismissed earlier as the "odd fringe historian". Harmakheru (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This again seems to be your interpretation of what the book states. You find passages you don't like and then try to muddy the waters by either claiming that these are apologetics, or claim they are contradicted by other passages you select. However this book is not my source. I was merely defending it against attacks. I don't have it, so can't deal with Harmakheru's detailed claims. Much as I would like it, where I live I do not have access to a university Library, so must use slower methods than some here. Xandar 22:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the book, including the passage Nancy would cite, is available on Google Books. McBrien says explicitly that he is presenting an argument used in "twentieth century Catholic apologetics", not one he supports. (emphasis his) In the immediate context, he rejects it as theologically erroneous; but you are free to see whether he supports it as history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Google books says "No preview available" to me. Xandar 22:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Then wait 24 hours, ask for a different edition, or try interlibrary loan - a wonderful institution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The book is also on Amazon, with a preview available there, including the page (577) where McBrien flatly states that "Jesus did not found the Church", so you can easily verify the quote for yourself. This is not, as you claim, my "interpretation" of McBrien--it is simply what McBrien himself explicitly says. As for your claim that you were merely "defending" the book from "attacks", in fact there were no such attacks; as I've already pointed out to you, the book I "attacked" was not McBrien's but the 1840 one by Pagani. Harmakheru (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Failed verification for "Some scholars agree that Jesus founded the church"

PMAnderson added {{failed-verification}} tags for this sentence:

Many scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus (ref #1) while others argue that it was created by Peter or Paul.(ref #2)

Ref#1: Norman, p. 11, p. 14, quote: "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime."

Ref#2: 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."

Now, it seems to me that these quotes support the idea that some assert that the Church was founded by Jesus and others (not Derrett) argue 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". The only thing I see wrong with this sentence is with the phrase "many scholars" because the assertion "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime." made by Norman might be considered to be a theological assertion rather than a historical one. Derrett's circumlocution is interesting. He puts himself in opposition to those "some" who "believe that Christianity was not founded by Jesus" but he doesn't go as far as Norman. Instead, he says that he is among those who "take Jesus as the inspiring force of the church." Heck, all Christians "take Jesus as the inspiring force of the church". The question at hand is whether Jesus actually intended to found a church and Derrett doesn't actually say anything about that in the quote that was provided.

PMAnderson, can you explain what your concerns are about this sentence and make suggestions on how to address those concerns?

--Richard (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The first tag is based on Harmakheru's quotes from Norman in #getting at the point above. Norman is not quoting historians, but is discussing a doctrine held by Roman Catholics as a matter of faith. (Nor is he making the assertion himself.)
• The second asserts that Peter (or Paul) founded Christianity, which is indeed widely held, but does not assert that [the Catholic Church] was created by Peter or Paul. While clearly related questions, they are not the same assertion.
• I would remove the sentence altogether, rather than attempt to patch it. It is not necessary to the section, not supported in its present form, and not substantiated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

O'Grady (and others) vs. Xandar and Nancy

As with McBrien, so with John O'Grady. Xandar assures us that O'Grady's The Roman Catholic church: its origins and nature is "also a serious modern historical view". OK, let's see what O'Grady says about the issues we've been discussing.

On p. 140 he says, "Various communities would have had a group of presbyter-bishops functioning as leaders of the local church. Eventually this evolved into a monarchical episcopacy in certain cities--e.g., Antioch may have had such a structure before other cities such as Rome. Finally the Church developed into the present structure of one bishop having a college of presbyters around him."

On p. 17 he says, "The monarchical episcopacy, however, probably developed in other churches in Christianity before it took shape in Rome."

On p. 18 he says, "Eventually, Rome followed the example of other christian communities and structured itself after the model of the empire with one presbyter bishop in charge ..."

On p. 146 he says, "The emergence of a single bishop in Rome probably did not arise until the middle of the second century. Linus, Cletus and Clement were probably prominent presbyter-bishops but not necessarily monarchical bishops. That Peter was the first bishop of Rome and founded the Christian church there can be traced back no earlier than the third century."

On p. 139 he says, "Whether Paul actually ordained or established presbyter-bishops in the churches he founded remains uncertain."

On p. 143 he says, "The study of the New Testament offers no proof that Jesus established the papacy nor even that he established Peter as the first bishop of Rome."

Does any of this sound familiar? Harmakheru (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the discussion above, Nancy wrote: "Just as National Geographic did not gloss over the fact that there are many Catholic historians who trace the origins of the Church to Jesus' consecration of Peter, neither have we. You are asking us to ignore a common, well known fact agreed by many historians ... Please provide a link to something that says this view is less valid historically than the opposing view."

OK, try these:

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, and that he did so through the "consecration" of Simon Peter. (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.)

From Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians in a Divided Church by Thomas P. Rausch (Order of St. Benedict/Liturgical Press, 2000), p. 45:

[Karl Keating] refutes ... argument on the nonexistence of the early papacy simply by referring to the tradition's naming Linus as the second pope ... but the emergence of the Petrine ministry is far more complex. Rome did not have a monoepiscopal government until close to A.D. 150. Nor should Keating take as historical without further question Tertullian's statement that Clement was ordained by Peter, something that would be questioned by most historians today.

So here we have reputable modern scholars, both publishing in reputable presses (one academic and the other ecclesiastical) stating that "few scholars today" would accept the kind of position you are attributing to "many historians", and that essential elements of that position "would be questioned by most historians today." Harmakheru (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Again most of Harmakheru's poinst seem to me to be irrelevant to the main discussion. Whether the writer imagines the bishop of Rome to be have been monarchical or otherwise is not of relevance to the Catholic Church's continuance from the Church founded in Rome and under Peter and Paul.

• "Eventually, Rome followed the example of other christian communities and structured itself after the model of the empire with one presbyter bishop in charge ..." Yes. And...?
• "Whether Paul actually ordained or established presbyter-bishops in the churches he founded remains uncertain." What has this to do with the point at hand?
• ""The study of the New Testament offers no proof that Jesus established the papacy nor even that he established Peter as the first bishop of Rome." Again we're not discussing the establishment of "the papacy" and you wouldn't find Jesus making Peter Bishop of Rome in the New Testament. That is not the point. The point is that the Catholic Church is the historical continuation of the Church established in Rome. Xandar 22:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The statements you deride as "irrelevant" were made in response to claims that you have made in the course of the discussion:

"Linus, Anacletus, and Clement were popes."

"The New testament shows us Bishops being appointed for all the new communities"

"the idea that Rome was the only city without a Bishop, or that Peter and Paul - who appointed bishops elsewhere - failed to take on the role or appoint office-holders in Rome is sheer and unsupported speculation."

These are claims that you have made. And once you made them, they became fair game for others to respond to. Harmakheru (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but the issues are arguable and they are still tangential to the main issue - whether a considerable numbe rof historians support the historical continuity of the Catholic Church of today from the Apostolic church. Xandar 23:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are a "considerable number", then it shouldn't be difficult to name a few of them, and to provide proper citations in support. Please do so. Harmakheru (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Source discussion regarding scholarly dispute on origins

We have article text being disputed by the person Karanacs is encouraging. I don't have a problem with this except that the disputed text is supported by several top sources. The text in question is:

The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter. Some historians agree while some disagree.

References

Discussion

I would like to ask all those who voted "oppose" in the above poll to please state here why they think these sources do not support the text. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 05:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Derrett quote reads in part: "Some believe that Christianity was not founded by Jesus but by Peter and the subsequent faith of Paul... Others, this writer included, take Jesus as the inspiring force of the church." That doesn't say that Jesus founded the Church although it is kind of implied by the juxtaposition with the "Some believe that Christianity was not founded by Jesus" assertion. I would like to understand the context in which Derrett is writing and to understand why he doesn't just come right out and say "Others, this writer included believe that Christianity was founded by Jesus".

This may not be fully analogous but the Society of St. Pius X was founded by Marcel Lefebvre but one might argue that Pius X was its inspiring force.

--Richard (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Derrett is contrasting his position with the statement "Some believe that Christianity was not founded by Jesus". His logical argument is that he is opposed to that statement. NancyHeise ^talk 06:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

More important is the fact that Nancy is also trying, further into the article, to use Derrett as support for the claim that "some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus". If that's what Derrett means, then why doesn't he just come out and say it, instead of beating around the bush with vague statements about "Christianity"? The obvious answer is that Derrett never meant to imply that Jesus founded the Catholic Church, especially since he later says that Jesus would not approve of Catholic essentials such as hierarchy and priesthood. In the case of the statement Nancy quotes above, Derrett might be taken to provide some support; in the case of the second sentence, which she also cites to him, he simply could not have meant what she wants him to mean. Harmakheru (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you, his statement is pretty clear to me and it seems that you do not have a consensus to support your position. Let's see what others have to say. NancyHeise ^talk 07:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's your right to disagree with us as it is ours to disagree with you. You asked for our reasons and we've given them. Actually we've given them before. The following comments were posted earlier under "getting at the point".

The quote from Edward Norman, The Roman Catholic Church, an Illustrated History, when read in context, does NOT constitute historical support for the claim that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. The entire section in which this quote appears is prefaced with: "The book begins with a few paragraphs on how Catholics understand the essentials of their faith." Norman's statement that "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime" is not offered as a statement of historical fact but as a statement of what the Catholic Church believes about itself. The same paragraph concludes, "the eternity to which men and women are called is infinite--and the judgment that follows is certain." If the statement about Jesus founding the Church is to be considered a historical judgment, then this statement must be as well; they stand or fall together. Harmakheru (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote from Derrett also does not provide much support, if any. It is one thing to assert, as Derrett does, that "Christianity" as a religious movement was founded by Jesus in the sense that he was its "inspiring force"; it is quite another thing to claim that Jesus founded the Catholic Church as an institution, since the Catholic church was (and is) only one of many manifestations of the "Christianity" which Jesus inspired. It should also be noted that Derrett goes on to say that Jesus "repudiated the oligarchical or monarchical power-structures known elsewhere which, before long, began to appear in the church itself" (p. 544), and that "Jesus had no conception of an official priesthood ... It was virtually from the pagan world ... that the office of priest as we know it appeared" (p. 545). Given that, it really is quite a stretch to cite Derrett as a source for the claim that the Catholic Church of today was founded by Jesus, which is what the present text seems to imply. Harmakheru (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And Nancy hasn't answered my point. Wilken says when the post was institutionalized, historians looked back &c. When was the post institutionalized? Centuries ago. So the statement, without more context, doesn't say anything about present-day historians. Furthermore, saying Peter was the first Pope isn't the same as saying the Catholic Church is the church. It would be perfectly consistent to say that the Pope is the true head of the church but the church is divided and RCC is only part of it. I don't know whether anyone actually does say that, but you can't simply assume things like that. Peter jackson (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the Jose Orlandis reference best. Here is an existence proof... a Catholic who writes history books expounding the "traditional narrative" for consumption by the general public. Is he a scholar of Catholic history? Well, of Visigothic Spain and the Western Medieval Church. He ain't no avant-garde Catholic theologian but maybe there is a disconnect between theological exploration and Catechesis.

--Richard (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet the point being made is that some scholars agree. The statement does not say that only experts of early Christian Church agree. Edward Norman, Jose Orlandis and Derrett are all historians, they are scholars. Their WP:RS books support article text. Can we stop criticizing sources that actually support the text and give me some better reasons why there is a problem here? NancyHeise ^talk 07:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The word "scholars" is horribly vague especially in this context where we are mixing theology with history. You may note that I modified "scholarship" to "theologians" in the "Origin and mission" section. I believe it is important to accurately characterize the sources for who they are.

Do we mean "historians" or "theologians"? Do we mean "scholars" or "popular writers"? "A Short History of the Catholic Church" ain't no scholarly work written according to the standards of academic historical research. That's all right as long as we accurately portray it for what it is "popular history designed for the catechetical instruction of young adults".

Others have given you their opinion of Derrett and Norman. I would conjecture that their writings may be at a higher level of scholarship than Orlandis' "Short History". Whether they qualify as scholars of history or not, I am not prepared to say at this time.

--Richard (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, this dictionary defines the term "scholar" as this [10]. Thus all of our authors fit into this definition and I think we need to respect the dictionary to help us choose proper terms. NancyHeise ^talk 07:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you're missing the point and I am tempted to wonder if this is deliberate... there are many different kinds of "scholars". Someone may know enough to write a book about Church History but not be an academic historian who writes journal articles. I suspect that Orlandis has written journal and magazine articles since he has some 200 publications and only 20 of them are books. The question is where were those articles published? In popular magazines or peer-reviewed academic journals? What were the topics? Were they about early Christianity or about Visigothic Spain and the Western Medieval Church? And what are the other 19 books like? Are they all like "A Short History"? Have any of them been cited by academic historians?

What would you think if a scholar of Italian Art were cited in support of an assertion about Church history? You'd probably say "Gee, what does he know about Church history. Well, he might know something about Church history as it relates to Italian art but that doesn't make him an expert in Church history.

Now, the line between a theologian and a Church historian is perhaps less clear but it's there and I'm trying to make the text clear that the Houlden book only describes a "challenge to the traditional narrative" from theologians and not from "secular historians". I suspect that there are secular historians who would share this view but I am not prepared to rest that claim on the Houlden source.

--Richard (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Some scholars" is vague and misleading, and deliberately so. If you look at the refs, it actually means "some Catholic Church historians". You would struggle, to say the least, to find refs from secular historians who agree with this statement.Haldraper (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"some Catholic Church historians" is some scholars. NancyHeise ^talk 15:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to go down that road Nancy? Richard Dawkins et al also come within your ultra-vague category of "some scholars", do you want me to start adding some of their quotes here as well?Haldraper (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Or, on the other hand, there are the true followers of some traditional Catholic views: that much of world history is the result of a conspiracy, founded by Caiaphas at the instigation of the devil, acting through the Jews, Protestants and Freemasons. Much of this article is not far from that position; but such statements can readily be sourced to "scholars" no worse, and no less Catholic, than Pagani. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here, but have done so instead on my talk page. I wish everyone contributing here to work well to improve the article. Geometry guy 23:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Vote regarding scholarly POV's on Church origins

Our article text, the one that has gone through several FACs and peer reviews, states in the lead and in Origins and Mission section that there are different opinions among scholars regarding the Church origins. WP:NPOV requires us to present these views giving each side equal weight. We have done this but some editors here are saying that there are no historians that agree with the Catholic POV on the origin of the Church even though we have included three sources (see refs 23-26 [11]) in the article to support this POV. I have also provided some more sources on the talk page above. See [12] and [13]. Because Karanacs and Richard are eliminating our consensus text in favor of hiding these important facts, I would like to have a vote here to see what true consensus decides. Please note that the dispute among historians has been displayed in Origins and Missions since February 2008 and was inserted there as a result of discussions among many editors in the second FAC [14]. Since then the article has undergone several more peer reviews and FACs with no challenges to this information until now.

Please vote Support if you favor our consensus version of text or Oppose if you would like to eliminate these facts altogether.

• Consensus text is here: (third lead paragraph and second para in Origins and Mission)[15]
• This is what happens when we lose the consensus text [16]

Please do not clutter up voting area, discussion takes place below, just give us your vote here:

Support

• Support NancyHeise ^talk 01:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support I will make a quick comment here. That the Catholic Church believes St Peter to be the first Bishop of Rome is exactly the same as its belief in Peter being the first Pope. The end. It is laughable to me that some doubt or demand proof of something that is a tautology in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Bishop of Rome = Pope. This is the Catholic view. Nancy has shown this source: Wilken, p. 281 which states that historians looked back and recognized Peter as Pope. And Pope = Bishop of Rome. They are identical, those positions. What is meant by one is meant by the other. Sorry to ruin anyone's day. Gabr-el 04:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support The sources are there. The sources are acceptable to wikipedia. There should be no problem here, and it is absolutely ridiculous that there is. I like to assume good faith with people, but I simply cannot here. This is a bold faced attempt to hide relevant information from the general public. Farsight001 (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Very Strong Support I must agree 100% with Farsight! Aditionally, we are not hre arguing if what is said he is true or false just that it be accurately sourced, which it is. Callelinea (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per sources. (however Derret doesn't seem to fit in where he is placed). Str1977 ^(talk) 06:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support There have been attempts to radically change the text, eliminate sources, and prevent reversions on the basis of an assumed "new consensus" supposedly arrived at over the past couple of days. We do need a statement in the lead and the article on the historic origin of the Church, including historians that support the Church's position. Xandar 09:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. We are talking sourcing here. Belief. Not whether everyone believes it.Student7 (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I was equivocal about this at first but I think this version is preferable. To address at least one opposing arguement stated below by Karanacs, this version does not say that it is the scholarly consensus, only that it is held by some. The material in question is factual and really quite innocuous. I would add as a source A Short History of the Catholic Church by historian José Orlandis where at p 10-11 he explicitly states that Jesus established a Church with primacy in Peter. Perhaps as a measure of compromise there should be a statement to the effect that there is by no means a scholarly consensus on the issue. Mamalujo (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The sourcing is accurate as far as I can see. Marek.69 ^talk 05:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. We know why they want to remove that information from the lead, and I don't think it's because of neutrality. The statement is true, and it acknowledges both sides. Why do we want to remove it again? --Rockstone (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Same reason as farsight. "The sources are there. The sources are acceptable to wikipedia. There should be no problem here, and it is absolutely ridiculous that there is. I like to assume good faith with people, but I simply cannot here. This is a bold faced attempt to hide relevant information from the general public."- BennyK95 - Talk 16:18, October 25 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Very strongly oppose for reasons stated at length below. Any poll containing the wording Oppose if you would like to eliminate these facts altogether should be regarded as rigged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose --Richard (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. A source that argues so obviously fallaciously—everyone agrees the Bible is historically accurate; the Bible says that Jesus appointed an infallible authority; therefore the pope is infallible—is not an acceptable source for anything, least of all this article. And the problem of sourcing is much much bigger than this one source; the assertion that this claim is verifiable seems to be resting on a combination of utterly inappropriate sources, and irresponsibly liberal interpretations of appropriate sources. The situation is pretty much exactly as Harmakheru describes it above, and his "whore of Babylon" analogy is wholly appropriate. [And don't you dare refactor my post.] Hesperian 02:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Very strongly oppose for reasons given below. Harmakheru (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose and what's more this poll is not in good faith: to call one option a "consensus version" when the very fact of having a poll proves otherwise, and to call the other the proposal "to eliminate these facts altogether," shows a lack of good faith. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - must state that it's probably best to leave out all discussions of what historians believe out of the lead (what the church believes is perfectly acceptable there, as long as its qualified that that is what the church believes). In the body of the work, the sources being used do not seem to back up what is being claimed they say. Too many academic historians disagree for me to feel that even using "some" is okay. And I have to protest against the fact that this "poll" was advertised to many members of WikiProject Catholicism, but somehow some of the long term editors who might have been expected to oppose weren't notified. Note that I really did not want to get drawn into this, but the whole issue of misusing sources has me concerned. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for much the same reasons as Ealdgyth: a) This does not belong in the lead, b) the sources have been misused and do not actually support the statement, c) it appears that this is not the consensus among historians. I also strongly object to the POV wording of this RfC and the canvassing of supporters. Karanacs (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sacred history is wholly within the boundaries of faith and is not perfect knowledge. A historian's beliefs are no more valid or important than those of homeless widow's. There is a major difference between stating beliefs versus saying the Catholic Church is the church first lead by Peter at the appointment of Jesus Christ is historical fact. Confusing the sacred with the secular is what has bothered me most in this conversation. An aside: organizations teach and cannot believe. -^StormRider 16:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The historians should just be dropped from the lead. Is the second diff we are pointed to above the right one? There is just not enough recorded of 1st century Christianity in Rome and elsewhere to justify the bald main statement made, and the quotes I've seen from historians don't really reference it adequately as a historical statement. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've been following this page for some time and the recent input of scholarship and reliable secondary sources (by Harmakheru and others) is a really positive step towards disentangling religious beliefs, theological positions and historiography. Such contributions should be welcomed and encouraged by editors of all viewpoints, not stonewalled. I agree with the comments of (highly respected) editors Jbmurray, Ealdgyth, Karanacs et al. above, and also with suggestions below that this poll should be abandoned in favor of more collaborative approaches. Geometry guy 19:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Procedural Oppose. I don't think that a poll is useful at the moment. There are better means to reach consensus which should be explored. I would also suggest that this material need not be discused in the lead. Majoreditor (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What

I am very confused as to what exactly the need for the proof of the early church. Do certain users think that this page needs wikifiying? - BennyK95 - Talk 22:53, October 23 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused too. I can't figure out what people are arguing about here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell, there is a "traditional narrative" which asserts that "Jesus founded the Catholic Church first by the gathering of the twelve Apostles and then by selecting Peter as their head. Peter subsequently travels to Rome, founds a Church there, serves as Bishop of Rome and, before his martyrdom, consecrates Linus as the second Bishop of Rome. This line of Bishops of Rome ultimately becomes recognized as the Popes of the Catholic Church." This is what the Church teaches and this is what Xandar and Nancy would like to characterize as "a view which many historians share". To !vote "Support" is to endorse this text. To !vote "Oppose" is to oppose the text is to assert that this is not a view which many historians share (i.e. that very few historians believe that the "traditional narrative" has a basis in historical fact). --Richard (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I understand thank you.- BennyK95 - Talk 16:20, October 25 2009 (UTC)

Poll discussion

• 1. polling is evil; it is worst when it attempts to decide questions of accuracy and neutrality.
  2. Nancy's text is not consensus; that's why we are having this discussion.
  3. FACs (and peer reviews) are notoriously inept at grading content - they rarely include a subject expert.
  4. Nor did this article pass any of the FACs.
  5. This is profoundly unclear on what the "Catholic view" is.

     A. Does it comprise the claims made in the (current) Catechism, that Jesus' statement to Peter made him head of the Apostles, and that the authority of Benedict XVI and other modern bishops descends from the Apostles? If so, the article asserts that this is Catholic doctrine, and nobody proposes to remove it.

     B. Is it the claim that Peter was Bishop of Rome (in the same sense Benedict now is) for 25 years? That is not "the Catholic view"; it is one view, held by some Catholics (and some Protestants) and denied by many others - indeed, no historian of any denomination has been offered who affirms it.

  6. Without a source, Nancy's text is a WP:V (and WP:OR) violation.
  7. [Vote] Oppose if you would like to eliminate these facts altogether. What do I vote to deprecate someone who would phrase a poll in such a manner? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sept, We have used polls on this page before to determine consensus, we are not violating any Wikipedia rules. NancyHeise ^talk 02:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, your poll completely violates any notion of good faith. This is not the first time you've acted this way. Stop it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There are very strong rules against refactoring posts without consent. I did not, and do not, consent to having Nancy's special pleading presented as the poll text and my response dismembered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

One reason voting can be evil is that it can prematurely force the discussion into an up-or-down yes-or-no vote such as this one. Although Xandar and I may never see completely eye-to-eye on this issue, I would like to pursue his proposal of separating the "belief" sentence from the "historian's view" sentence and thus allowing for a more nuanced explanation of what historians think. Nancy's preferred text does not allow for this and does not adequately represent the current views of historians as explained in the "Origin and Mission" section. Nancy's preferred text in the lead is not a faithful summary of the details that are presented in that section. So I oppose not because I want to completely eliminate the text but because the article is better off without Nancy's text than with it. --Richard (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Further addressing Sept's points. Here's the latest peer review [17] that this article passed, the wording is in this version [18]. A consensus agreed to the form of the article with this wording included and it was presented to FAC in this form with this wording. No FAC reviewer opposed the article for this wording. NancyHeise ^talk 02:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care, except in providing more ammunition for the case that FA is a waste of time. Very little discussion of content at all, and most of that current politics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In essence, Nancy, you are inferring support for your text by the silence of the FAC reviewers ("Silence implies assent"). Thus, it appears that there has never been any discussion of this issue or any attempt to assess consensus via a straw poll or RFC. And you wish us to yield the weight of argument as evidenced by the sources presented to the imposing silence of the FAC reviewers. The fact that FAC reviewers raised umpty-ump issues doesn't mean that there are only those umpty-ump issues in the article and no more. If this is the sort of "consensus" that you are invoking in support of your preferred text, don't expect us to respect that kind of consensus on this or any other text in the article. --Richard (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The article went through Good Article Reassessment here [19] and the wording is supported in Origins and Missions section here per that reassessment by many very quality wikipedia editors see [20]. NancyHeise ^talk 02:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That claim also appears to have {{failed verification}}. Much is discussed, including the article name and Roman Catholic relations with the Eastern Churches, but where is the passage under discussion here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[From my talk page] Do you think that there are no historians that agree with the Church's point of view of its own origins? NancyHeise ^talk 02:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Educate me. Show me your very best source in support of the claim. Hesperian 02:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Here'a a historian that agrees. [21] NancyHeise ^talk 02:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The very source I was talking about above. You really a 19th century religious tract is a reliable source for what historians think? Hesperian 02:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one. [22]. NancyHeise ^talk 02:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And, as stated above by Harmakheru, here's a source that says the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon.[23] Hesperian 02:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The National Geographic source says that "after the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and saw Peter as the first pope of the Church of Rome". Historians - for many centuries looked back - this is what Nat Geo is saying and is not a surprising fact I would add. That amounts to "many" historians". I provided the link above to show that there are historians in other centuries who agree with this Point of View. NancyHeise ^talk 02:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's it? That's all you have? A passing reference, not itself cited, to an ambiguous concept called the Church of Rome? Supported by some 19th century religious tracts, steeped in Catholic doctrine, written by a Catholic for Catholics? Oh please. Hesperian 03:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, there were scientists in other centuries who firmly believed that the earth was the immovable center of the cosmos, but no sane person today would argue for that position, and I would hope that no sane person would argue that Wikipedia should provide equal time for geocentrists. If you're going to go trolling for support in past centuries, we can "document" all sorts of ridiculous things. The question is not what scholars believed in times past, but what is held to be true by the mainstream of scholarly opinion today. Harmakheru (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is simply presenting a fact that many historians both present and past agree with the Church's POV on its origins. We are not making scientific claims. Chill. NancyHeise ^talk 03:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Way to beg the question. Your "fact" is exactly what is disputed here, and is exactly what you seem unable to support with reliable sources. Hesperian 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Giovanni Battista Pagani: 19th century historian; author of the following historical works, qualifying him as a neutral and reliable source for information on what historians do and don't think about the origins of the Catholic church:

• The Way to Heaven: A Manual of Devotion
• The Pillar and Foundation of Truth: the Roman Catholic Church
• The manna of the New Covenant
• Devotion to the Most Holy Sacrament
• The End of the World; Or, the Second Coming of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
• The attainment of our last end
• The anima divota ; or Devout Soul

I laugh. Hesperian 03:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The book you cite above [24] for the "Whore of Babylon" comment is listed as a "religion" book by googlebooks, [25] not "history". NancyHeise ^talk 03:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, this is a new low. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WGAF? Now you're relying on Google books metadata? Read this:[26]. Hesperian 03:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I recognise this now: obfuscation. Do you withdraw the claim that Pagani is a reliable source for an assertion about what historians think? Hesperian 03:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am just relying on Googlebooks. Do you deny that googlebooks is a reliable, neutral source to judge whether a book covers historical or religious topics? NancyHeise ^talk 03:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. As would anyone who knew anything about how Google constructs its book metadata.

You have a choice here. You can go and do some research, find out about Pagani, discover what his qualifications were (Professor of Divinity), find out what other books he wrote (see above), figure out that he was not a historian and cannot be used as a reliable source for claims about what historians do or did think, withdraw your claim that he can, and walk away having learned something useful; or you can stubbornly cling to the worthless shred of support you wrongly think you have (Google books metadata), refuse to look into this any further, continue to sustain an unsustainable position, and remain dogmatically ignorant for as long as you want. Hesperian 03:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FAC asks us to rely on "modern scholarship". The references in the article text are "modern scholarship". I supplied one 1800's era link on this talk page to prove a point and you now want me to start using non-modern scholarship to come up with legitimate article text? Sorry but your argument is not very persuasive. NancyHeise ^talk 03:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Before you move on to completely misrepresenting my position, can we nail down this question of whether a 19th century religious tract is a reliable source for claims about what historians think? So long as you continue claiming that it is, there's not much point my clarifying your myriad other confusions. Hesperian 03:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A fair sample of Google's metadata is this list of descriptions of one of the best known autobiographies of the last century as Fiction, History, or Social Science, depending on the edition. Nancy, do you really mean to claim this as a reliable source? Quo usque tandem abutere patentia nostra? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy doesn't know Latin (since she is a relatively young Catholic and a convert at that). Now, if she had gone to Catholic school in the 60's, she would know Latin or at least be able to claim to have forgotten it which is what I have to claim.

I got the bit about "abusing our patience" but I forgot what "tamquam" and "quo usque" meant so I had to look it up. Thank goodness for Google. "tamquam" means "still" and so PMAnderson's fractured original sounded like "you're still abusing our patience". Reminds me of the scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian where the Roman soldier catches a Jewish revolutionary writing graffiti which reads "Romanes eunt domus" and forces him to correct his atrocious Latin grammar "Romani ite domum!" (Romans go home!) If you haven't seen it or just want to see it again, you can find it here.

Of course, PMAnderson remembered the quote was really "Quousque tandem abutere patientia nostra?" which means "How long will you abuse our patience?"

The quote is from the Cicero's first Catiline oration. The background is given in this Wikipedia article. As the article explains, it is a wonderfully snarky thing to say to people who understand what it means.

I love the follow-on sentences: "quamdiu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?" which mean "For how long will that madness of yours mock us? To what end will your unbridled effrontery toss itself about?"

That said, it is a form of intellectual bullying to be snarky in a language which your interlocutor does not understand. In the future, if you feel a need to show off your classical erudition, please provide a translation and/or explanation for those of us who didn't make it that far in Latin.

--Richard (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The way this poll is constructed is thoroughly dishonest.

• The author uses loaded language to characterize her preferred text as "our" text and the "consensus" text--a classic rhetorical fallacy.
• She mischaracterizes Wikipedia policy under WP:NOV as requiring that equal weight be given to both sides of the argument. The policy in fact says no such thing.
• She claims that her preferred text does this, but in fact it does not, claiming the mantle of "many" scholars for her preferred text and relegating the opposing view to the domain of "others". In fact, current evidence suggests that the true balance of scholarly opinion goes very much the other way.
• She alleges that "some editors" are saying that "no historians" support her preferred position; to my knowledge, no editors in the present discussion have actually made that claim. What they have said is that none of the historians she adduces in support of her position actually do support it--a claim which so far she has not been able to refute.
• She describes her preferred position as "the Catholic POV", when in fact there is no single "Catholic" position on this subject, and on present evidence most modern Catholic scholars do not support the position she prefers.
• She claims to have provided at least five sources to support her position; four of these, in fact, do not support her position, and the fifth is not a work of modern historical scholarship but of 19th-century sectarian apologetics.
• She again uses loaded language to characterize disagreement with her position as a vote to "eliminate these facts altogether", when in actuality she has not yet been able to demonstrate that her preferred language is factual in the first place.

If someone tried to foist this kind of "poll" on the voting public in an election it would be ordered struck from the ballot as confusing, deceptive, tendentious, and deliberately misleading. Harmakheru (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This page has a long history of coming to agreement by using polls. Wikipedia does not prohibit them. Also, please note that the dispute among historians has been displayed in Origins and Missions since February 2008 and was inserted there as a result of discussions among many editors in the second FAC [27]. Since then the article has undergone several more peer reviews and FACs with no challenges to this information until now. Opposers are asking us to go against Wikipedia policy by hiding a notable dispute among scholars regarding the origins of the Church. WP:NPOV asks us to give both sides of the dispute and a long consensus of editors has supported article text and sources used to create and reference it. No opposers have provided sources from modern scholarship that suggest there is no dispute. No opposers have provided sources that suggest that no historians agree with the Catholic Church's point of view regarding its own origins. We have provided five so far, three are included in article text. NancyHeise ^talk 03:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Opposers are asking us to go against Wikipedia policy by hiding a notable dispute among scholars regarding the origins of the Church." First you have to provide reliable sources stating that such a dispute exists. Hesperian 03:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

They are already listed in the article text.(see refs 23-26[28]) This has been vetted by many editors through several peer reviews and FAC and Good Article Reassessment. The books used to support article text meet the highest qualifications spelled out by WP:reliable source examples regarding history books. NancyHeise ^talk 03:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Those sources are unacceptable. The first speaks only of "Christianity", not of the Catholic Church. The second speaks of the "Church of Rome", an ambiguous term. The third is written by an ecclesiastical historian whose views represents Catholic doctrine rather than historians' perspective. Any good-faith examination of these sources will show that they fail utterly to assert or even support the claim that "[The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter.] Some historians agree". Hesperian 04:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The first speaks of the "pope" of the "Church of Rome". There are no other churches in history that have a pope. "Church of Rome" is not disputed as the Roman Church is referred to be historians regularly when discussing the Catholic Church throughout history even to the present day. The third is written by Edward Norman, a professor of history at Oxford University whose book is a University Press. His views are not listed in his book as doctrine, but are presented as history. They are found in a section entitled "Catholic Origins" in his history book entitled "The Roman Catholic Church, an Illustrated History". I do not see any reviews of these sources trashing them. I can't just toss them because a Wikipedia editor does not like them. NancyHeise ^talk 04:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, look, it's Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am only going to speak to point 5, right now. A is correct. That is the Church's position, that cannot be denied, if you remove that from the article it's kind of a waste of time. B is a ringer question. And believe it or not, there are people who would believe that verbatim...even aluding to Peter walking around in a white robe and a beret. The fact is: We don't know how long Peter was the Bishop of Rome and it is irrelevant whether he was for 25 years, 25 days or 150 years...the only fact that matters is he was the first and was made so by Christ. That is the Catholic position according to the Catechism, Scripture, and Sacred Tradition. We can definitely say for Peter and many of the early popes that it was nothing like the modern papcy externally: no red slippers, no tiara, no college of Cardinals, no Basillica, no Swiss Guards, no Pope mobile. What we do know is many of these men were martyred, the church in Rome was forced underground for some time, etc.

So what is the point? Is this an attempt to write a thinly veiled hit piece? Is it an attempt to try to attack the Church by "debunking" each claim like a Jack Chick tract?

I worked on this article way back when it underwent FAC last year or maybe the year before.

Ironically, one of the texts I tried to introduce then, Catholicism by McBrien, was tossed out because of a lack of a Nihil obstat. I was surprised to see it used this time, even championed. Regardless, if sources like this are now fair game, I'd like to see some sources like Crossan, Meier, and a few others in here. I haven't done much but revert vandalism and make an occassional comment, because of these arguments which go nowhere.

So, I'll ask...what are we trying to accomplish here, just a simple counterpoint? Counterpoint to what? Are we denying the existence of Peter? Are we denying the Peterine Primacy? That he was ever in Rome? That he was a co-pope with Paul? That the seat of Peter was in Antioch, or Corinth, or Jerusalem? That not everyone bowed down in obedience to him as Pope? (and if that's your criteria...you really know nothing about the Papacy as there have been disagreements from then until now between the Pope and the people!).

Are we trying to assert that historians agree on all or none of what the Church claims? Or is someone trying to obtain the "Catholic View"? Anything not in the Catechism, is not Dogma. That would be what vestments Peter wore, his duration as Pope, whether he wore a beard or not. So I guess if you're asking was he an equivalent of what Benedict XVI is as far as a pastoral leader of the whole church and Christ's vicar on earth...for his time and place, the answer would be "Yes".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike, don't forget to vote. Thanks for coming by. NancyHeise ^talk 04:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Why polls are a great idea: [29][30][31][32][33][34] Hesperian 04:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Mike, just a correction - we did not use McBrien's Catholicism as a source for Beliefs section (or any other section) because it received an official reprimand (censor) from the USCCB that testified that it contained inaccuracies.[35] NancyHeise ^talk 04:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood. But, even then, I was not trying to use it in the "Beliefs" section, just in the history section. I may not have much use for Father McBrien as a priest, but he does get the history right.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He has a new book out "The Church" - it is a history book and we used it in the lead. We searched but could not find any bad reviews for it. It just came out so that might change but for now, it has been helpful. NancyHeise ^talk 04:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike, there are two issues at the core of this: (1) An insistence by Xandar and Nancy that the article must declare that "many historians" agree with certain Catholic confessional positions, which strikes some of us as an effort to misuse Wikipedia as an apologetic tool; and (2) attempts by Xandar and Nancy to support these claims of historians' agreement with citations to works which are either not proper sources in the first place (e.g., a 19th-century apologetic tract) or which do not, when read in context, actually support their position. All that has been asked of them is that they either remove the claims of agreement by "many historians", or else demonstrate with proper sourcing that "many historians" do in fact agree with their position. They flatly refuse to do the first, and have so far been unable to do the second. Hence all the acrimony you see now. Harmakheru (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The claim of "many historians" was replaced on October 21 by me.[36] in response to talk page discussions. The page right now reflects this wording: "Some historians agree while others disagree." NancyHeise ^talk 04:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you. My normal scope is on articles about science, nature, guns, knives, boxing, etc. As I said above a bit ago and earlier...I dislike phrases such as"many historians" or "primarily", etc. Why not name those historians? "Historians such as John Doe and Noah T. Whiner concur..." or "this view is not shared by former stage magician Joseph Nickell" (someone actually uses him as a source in another article and gets butthurt when I list his profession)...you see what I mean? What's many? It means nothing..."I hit many home-runs when I was a teenager"...it could have been 5, it could have been 50. Was it over 1 season...my whole ballplaying career or all in one game? I oppose the use of the term many and some in this context, because it belongs in a junior high term paper, not an encyclopedia article. While I agree with the statement on its face, I don't think that's the best way to state it? Does that make sense?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, that would be an improvement if it wasn't in the lead, where this sort of detail doesn't belong at all. But the problem remains further down, where the article still says: "Many scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus ..." When contrasted with a mere "other scholars disagree" to counterbalance it, this leaves the reader with the impression that the bulk of scholarly opinion is on the side of the statement that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, when in fact the evidence adduced so far strongly suggests that the balance goes the other way. And in any case, again, the sources you offer to support the "many scholars agree" statement do not actually support it, which leaves you with an apparent "scholarly majority" that has no demonstrated scholarly support. This is simply not acceptable. Harmakheru (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead does not say "many" at all. It says "some historians agree, others disagree" The "many" in Origins and Mission section could be reworked - perhaps we keep the term "some agree and some disagree" in that section too and eliminate "many" and "others". OK, I have made this change. See [37] NancyHeise ^talk 05:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an improvement; the phrasing is still awkward, but that can be fixed once the content issues are resolved. Now you just need to replace your sources for that statement with ones that actually do unambiguously support your position. Perhaps Mamalujo can help you find some, since he says he knows they exist and has read some of them. That might be a way of bringing all this to a tolerably harmonious conclusion. Harmakheru (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe our voting above and our previous FAC's and peer reviews have shown that the sources support the point made in the article. I disagree that any source needs replacing. Unless you have a consensus to replace them I do not intend to do it. I will respect the consensus we already have in place unless a new consensus is arrived to do something different. NancyHeise ^talk 05:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And so it continues, world without end ... Harmakheru (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to get people to discuss evolving mutually acceptable wording for both the lead and body text. But Harmakheru and others just wanted to eliminate all the existing references. Xandar 09:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Only because the existing references don't actually support the statement they are attached to. It's a waste of time to negotiate precise wording before it is known what wording can be properly substantiated. First come up with some proper references that support what you want to say, and then we can discuss the best way to say it. Harmakheru (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - OK, I'm a practicing RC, so you can all accuse me of WP:COI. Having said that, I have to say that there is some reason to question both sides here, and several other issues as well. One of the most important questions to my eyes is whether the Church which was allegedly headed by Peter must be seen as being substantively similar to the Catholc Church of today to be said to be the same. I would have to say "No," because anything would evolve over 2000 years. Even Peter's status as "bishop" is a question. By the way, the CC wouldn't be the only religious body to decide that it's founders actions conformed to the church's own, later, institutionalized practices, and that direct disciples of the founder are often grandfathered in as leaders of the group after the founder's death. I also have to say that the frequency with which the claim is made, both historically and today, is probably in and of itself sufficient cause for it to be mentioned in the article, and yes, even in the lead. The exact phrasing is of course always open to question, and I think that that phrasing is going to be a problem coming to. I also have to acknwoledge that, if the phrasing survived FAC and the material regarding it hasn't changed substantively since then, regardless of how others impugn the FAC process, that is some support for including the data. My own choice would be to include in the lead the fact that the claim is made by several within the church, and accepted for much of the history of the Western Church, but largely disputed by academics today. That would I think cover all the bases, while still placing a degree of emphasis on the current academic view. John Carter (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As a frequent FAC reviewer, I take exception to "the phrasing survived FAC and the material regarding it hasn't changed substantively since then, regardless of how others impugn the FAC process, that is some support for including the data". This article has yet to pass at FAC, which means that reviewers found issues with it. Reviewers are not required (nor encouraged) to leave a complete list of issues. Most will leave a subset and then wait for those to be fixed before adding more. The fact that this was not discussed at an FAC nom that did not pass means only that reviewers focused on other parts of this extremely long article. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word on that. I would have assumed if it were a maoor point it would have been brought up there, but sometimes I'm wrong. I would like to point out however that there does seem to be some significant discussion in the public about the issue, which, like I said above, indicates at least to me that on the basis of the notability of the topic within the broader subject of the Catholic church it I think probably merits at least a mention, if only to say that it is not a belief held by a majority of scholars today. I've heard the argument thrown at me by some rather zealous New Agers and others over the years, many of whom made rather amusing errors of fact in condemning the idea, like Julius Caesar having been behind the crucifixion of Jesus, for instance. So I think the subject is notable enough to be mentioned in the laad, although I can't suggest any other terms than something along the lines of what I proposed above. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to have the sentence not there at all rather than the "some agree, some disagree" ultra-relativism IMO since "agree, disagree" with no context give, cancels each other out to the extent that its pointless to include. What is more important is WHO agrees and WHO disagrees, their empirical academic standing. At least state the motives of the camps who agree and who disagree—but even that might be undue weight, we already focus far too much on the views of obscure relativistic sects and the positions of already outdated counter-culture trends in this article as it is, when this is simply supposed to be a presentation of the Church itself. Other than that, if an agreement can't be made, just use the peer reviewed version from when it became a GA. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Done for the lead. This would be a valid point independent of the sourcing of the some say; others say; Wikipedia discourages this style precisely because it does tend to promote editors blogging at each other. What do you think of the similar language under Origins and Mission? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to find a middle road

Here we go again...

Septentrionalis deleted Nancy's "Some historians agree while others disagree" text from the lead.

This editing without a consensus is really a kind of edit-warring and should be discouraged. I've already warned Karanacs and Xandar about this. It would be good if we can find something that we can live with while we continue this discussion.

The problem as I see it is that there are three basic approaches:

1. Say nothing about what historians think
2. Say "some" or "many" historians agree with what we say the Catholic Church believes but make no mention of those who disagree
3. Say "some agree" while "others disagree"

I'm OK with (1) or (3) but not (2) and I think most of those voting Oppose in the poll are of a similar mind.

It occurs to me, however, that there are different parts to the problem at hand.

First, there is the question of whether Jesus ever intended to found a church. Accepting the gospel account at face value, he says "You are the rock on which I will found my church". Even if you accept he said that, there is the question of what he meant by "ecclesia (assembly)". The next 2000 years of Christian history are attempts to answer that.

Second, there is the question of whether what Jesus founded was "the Christian Church" or "the Catholic Church". Obviously, the Catholics think they are one and the same thing and the non-Catholics think otherwise.

We have been assuming that the challenge to the historicity of the statement "Jesus founded the Catholic Church" can be mounted by proving that Christians existed in Rome before Peter arrived there and Peter was not the monarchical Bishop of Rome (in the sense that there may have been other bishops in Rome concurrently). These facts may be asserted without proving that "the Catholic Church is not the church that Jesus founded".

If we argue that Peter did not found the See of Rome and was never the Bishop of Rome (in the sense of being a monarchical bishop and thus the only bishop of Rome), are we making an argument about the church Jesus founded or just the technical, legal mechanism by which the present Bishop of Rome claims the Primacy of Simon Peter? I think we are arguing the latter and thus either attacking or defending a strawman that the Catholic Church itself may not consider central to its teaching.

Perhaps the reason the Catholic Church can abandon claims that Peter founded the See of Rome and was its monarchical bishop for 25 years is that the legitimacy of the Catholic Church does not necessarily rely on those claims. (i.e. those claims used to be used to support the legitimacy of the Catholic Church but it doesn't feel the need to insist on them anymore).

Ultimately, the claim is that Jesus founded the Christian Church, that there is a basis for arguing from the "Rock" dialogue that Jesus intended Peter to be the head of that Church, and the See of Rome claims the right to be the head of the Christian church through apostolic succession from Peter.

Do Catholic historians support this view? I think they do. It's supported by the Gospels, Irenaeus and others.

Are there challenges to this view? AFAICT, mostly on the grounds that Peter was a different kind of "bishop" than the later Bishops of Rome. Yeh, a small minority argue that Peter never went to Rome or was never referred to as a "bishop" there. However, to argue that the apostles weren't at least equal to or higher than bishops is a strange argument indeed.

In summary, while the specific parts of the "old" historical narrative (Peter and Paul founding the See of Rome and Peter serving as bishop for 25 years) may have been abandoned, the basic argument is still held (that Jesus founded the Christian Church with which the Catholic Church is synonymous and the current Bishop of Rome is the only heir to the Primacy of Simon Peter).

Non-Catholics, of course, challenge this but that is mostly a theological dispute not just a purely historical one.

Any objections to this line of reasoning? If not, can we find a way to communicate this to the reader?

--Richard (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard,I think you would be a good candidate to propose a concise compromise version. I think the third of your three approaches makes sense ("some agree" while "others disagree"). I don't think the compromise needs all of the nuance that you have in your post above - it would be too unwieldy. For example: Yes, there are many who do not believe that Jesus intended to found a church as such (however some of those [more theologians than historians] still expound the ecclesial claims of the Catechism, holding that it was founded on, if not by, Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit... or similar arguments), but such nuances are too peripheral for a general encyclopedia article. Although originally equivocal, I expressed support for Xandar's proposal. One reason being that some historians and other scholars do explicitly say, with some variation in theory and expression, that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Those who oppose this statement are simply wrong. It doesn't mean that what those scholars say is necessarily true but they do say that. I can't see what's wrong with putting that in the article, as long as we're not saying it is the consensus or something of that sort. Mamalujo (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that what really would work best is if everyone read a lot of different sources, assimilated them, and then figured out what the various academic historians say about it. Not just by searching in google books for phrases, but really reading a wide variety of sources discussing this issue in their entirity and then sitting down and putting in the article what the sources say. Richard, I have a great deal of respect for your efforts to find compromise, but most of what you've written above isn't backed by any source, you're speculating, it appears to me, especially such as "Perhaps the reason the CC can abandon.." lead to OR and not what we should be doing here. Wikipedia articles are written from secondary sources, not from what we believe. We need to spend more time in this article discussing a very wide variety of what academic historians say, if we're going to discuss historical "facts". We should do the same with theological works when discussing theological positions. The problem here is that people are writing statements and then trying to find sources to fit what has already been written, when the proper approach is to read the sources and then write what the sources say. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, OR is bad because it cannot be inserted into Wikipedia. However, that doesn't mean we have to leave our brains at the door. As it turns out, my speculative OR is more or less borne out by James Leslie Houlden's summary of the positions of "modern Catholic theologians" regarding the "foundation of the Church by Jesus" (see hyperlink provided by Harmakheru below). Sometimes it is reasonable to use what we think to be true to guide our search for sources. If it turns out that what we think to be true isn't borne out by the sources, then hopefully we have the intellectual honesty to adjust our thinking accordingly. --Richard (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I see numerous objections from all sorts of directions.

(1) Many modern scholars, including Catholic ones, flatly deny that Jesus ever even intended to found a Church, much less that he did so. (I disagree with them on this point, but what I think isn't what matters here.)

(2) Even those scholars who agree that Jesus founded some kind of Church are divided on whether he founded it on Simon Peter or gave him any sort of primacy. (Again, I think Peter's foundational role and primacy are crystal clear from the New Testament evidence, but it's not what I think that matters.)

(3) Even those scholars who accept that Peter held some sort of primacy among the apostles are divided on the issue of whether Jesus intended that primacy to be continued by others after Peter's death.

(4) Even those scholars who accept that Jesus intended a continuing Petrine primacy are divided on whether this primacy was uniquely devolved upon the Church of Rome; some, for example, following the lead of Cyprian of Carthage, insist that the Petrine primacy is possessed by every bishop throughout the world who stands in legitimate apostolic succession, whether in communion with Rome or not.

(5) Even those scholars who accept that a unique Petrine primacy attached to the See of Rome are divided on exactly how and why that primacy became attached to Rome, by what means or succession it was passed down within the See of Rome, whether Rome itself remained true to that primacy, and exactly what authority the primacy legitimately exercises in the world today.

I don't think there's any way to boil all this down into a sentence or two, but frankly I don't see why any of this has to be in the article at all. Is it common practice in Wikipedia articles on religion to make historical judgments about the truth or falsehood of every religious claim? If not, then why is it necessary to drag historical verification into this issue and in this article? Of course "some" scholars agree with particular claims and disagree with others. For almost any claim, no matter how self-evidently ridiculous, you're going to be able to find "some" scholars who support it; and for almost any claim, no matter how apparently sensible, you're going to be able to find "some" scholars who deny it.

There is an excellent summary of this whole issue in James Leslie Houlden's Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia, vol. 2, pp. 211-214. It documents the range of scholarly and theological opinion on the subject in the last couple of centuries from both Catholic and non-Catholic perspectives. It also provides some sourcing for several of the currently unsourced or badly sourced claims that have been made here, including the view that "Jesus founded the Catholic Church" and the recent "re-evaluation" of the traditional view within Catholicism. I highly recommend that all parties to the discussion take a look at this before continuing. You can find it here: [38] Harmakheru (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I did read a good bit of Leslie Houlden's work (including the portion you directed us to) yesterday when considering this matter. Rahner's position stated in Houlden's work, although not a historian, is one of those within the spectrum of authorities, although approaching the envelope, which supports Xandar's position. You say we can't "boil" all the various ecclesialogical positions regarding the Church's origin down to a sentance or two. That may be true, but we don't need to do that. All the article merely has to do is state what the Church's position is, easily located in the Catechism, and it is sufficient to say that some scholars support that position and others dispute it in various regards and degrees. The disputed material decidedly does not "make historical judgments about the truth or falsehood" of the Church's claim, it merely states that some scholars do so. That seems to be the problem here - opponents are acting as though the disputed material makes an historical judgment about the truth of the claim, when it actually remains neutral. You say that "For almost any claim, no matter how self-evidently ridiculous, you're going to be able to find "some" scholars who support it". However, scholars who support a self-evidently ridiculous claim would be advocating a fringe theory and would not warrant inclusion. That is quite far from the case here. Mamalujo (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mamalujo's statement that "[a]ll the article merely has to do is state what the Church's position is, easily located in the Catechism, and it is sufficient to say that some scholars support that position and others dispute it in various regards and degrees."

Those who disagree with one or more of the Catholic Church's teachings -- about its founding, Peter, primacy, etc. -- can add their comments to the separate article on Criticism of the Catholic Church, which states that it "subsumes critical observations made about the current or historical Catholic Church, in its actions, teachings, omissions, structure, or nature; theological disagreements would be covered on a denominational basis. Criticisms may regard the concepts of papal primacy and supremacy, or aspects of church structure, governance, and particular practices."

Eagle4000 (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What does "the Catholic Church hold" about Peter? Please be precise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states, at section 765: "The Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until the Kingdom is fully achieved. Before all else there is the choice of the Twelve with Peter as their head. .... The Twelve and the other disciples share in Christ's mission and his power, .... By all his actions, Christ prepares and builds his Church." (Emphasis added.) Eagle4000 (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I believe the text asserts that this is Roman Catholic doctrine. I do not think any of it is material which a historian, acting as such, can agree or disagree with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, it doesn't say that, and should. The section cited, please note, references Mark 3;14-15 (the gathering of the Twelve), not Matthew 16;18. Hence a tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Mamalujo, if Xandar and/or Nancy had cited the claim to Rahner and others of his stature, I would not have objected (although I would still object to the attempt to portray this as a case of "many scholars/historians" vs. mere "others" as they were trying to do until yesterday--and as far as I know, Xandar has still not acquiesced to the milder "some" statement that Nancy changed it to). As I've explained before, the objections have resulted from two problems: (1) the misuse of sources to give the appearance of scholarly support when in fact the cited sources do not support the claimed position, and (2) the attempt to impose language which leaves the reader with the impression that the mainstream of scholarly opinion supports the supposed "Catholic position", while the opposing view is held by only a distinct minority (which Xandar has repeatedly characterized as "fringers" and "revisionists"). Not only is this language unsourced and not "neutral point of view", it's factually incorrect, since even the mainstream of Catholic opinion (including the Catechism itself) no longer supports the supposedly "Catholic" position. The practical effect of this is to imply (falsely) that mainstream scholarship has made a historical judgment about the truth or falsehood of the Church's claim, and has come down strongly on the side of its truth. And that is using Wikipedia for apologetics rather than scholarship.

Thought experiment: If it could be demonstrated that in fact "many historians" actually reject the "Catholic position" on this issue, while only "some" or maybe even "very few" still support it, would Xandar and Nancy be fighting as hard not to "censor" that fact? Would they be so insistent that the reader has a right to know this very important piece of data, and that NPOV requires that it be highlighted even in the lead? Would they not be fighting just as hard to keep that fact out of the article as they are fighting now to keep their preferred "fact" in it.? Harmakheru (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I restored Richard's text, on two grounds.

• Even despite Harmakheru's rule (generally true), we have no scholars who support the traditional view; we have some who state that it is the traditional view.
• I agree with Yorkshirian (although I believe for other reasons) that some say; others say is a poor way to write an article.

I therefore support Richard's option (1), not his option (3).

As an alternative to option (1), we can follow what McBrien actually says:

4. Catholic apologetics have argued that...

which distinguishes the traditional view from doctrine (which it is not), and from documentary history (which it is not). This is sourceable and accurate; whether it will have more friends than any other option is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Nancy, can you please make it very clear which editors you requested to join this discussion? [39] (If you've already done so, my apologies - I have not yet read all of this section.) From a quick glance at your contributions, it appears you've only contact editors who tend to agree with your position, which is a definite violation of WP:CANVASS. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy contacted me knowing that I would oppose this proposal. I don't think canvassing applies here, but rather she knows that those she contacted are interested editors. -^StormRider 16:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Nancy and I have butted heads over this article and its direction quite a few times. I think while we agree on matters of Faith, I've been critical of the scholarship or lack thereof used in the article and as source material, etc. I don't think she was canvassing, just saw I had been recently active and asked my opinion.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mike and StormRider. I looked at the links provided by Hesperian and it appeared that there was not a clearly biased attempt to canvas only one side and the request was very neutrally worded although I agree with Harmakheru that the question that we are being polled on is biased in its wording. --Richard (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Richard, Mike and StormRider. It appears that Nancy has contacted interested editors, regardless of their views. Majoreditor (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you guys for sticking up for me. I would like to ask Karanacs to use her keen sensibilities to see if anyone has canvassed for the opposite reason. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 05:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, she was just notifying the regular group of interested editors, which includes the whole spectrum of opinions. Contacting people does not equal canvassing, and I think any serious editor to Wikipedia knows the difference. Let's not cry wolf here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Time to end the poll and look for a mutually agreeable resolution?

As I've said, one reason that !voting is evil is that it represents an attempt by the majority to strongarm the minority (and I admit that I was one of the ones trying to do this).

I suspect Nancy started this poll because I and others claimed that the consensus was running 5-2 against her and Xandar. The current count is 9-7 against her text. Unless something changes dramatically, it appears that we will not wind up with a clear consensus for or against the text in question.

I agree with the comments of several editors who feel that "surviving" a failed FAC does not bring the blessing of consensus onto text that was never discussed at FAC. I would respect an RFC that yielded a clear consensus (75-80% in favor) but this pseudo-consensus of never having been opposed at FAC is quite dubious to me.

Nancy, if you feel it would help, you might consider turning this into an RFC and posting it at WP:RFC. I'm not convinced it will change the results but, then again, I didn't expect the poll to turn out to be this close either.

What I think would be more productive is to stop the voting and go back to discussing how to find a mutually agreeable text.

Harmakheru, instead of challenging Nancy and Xandar to come up with sources to support what they want to say, why not look for the text that you can endorse which comes closest to what they want to say? (i.e. instead of being confrontational and contentious, let's try and help them find a solution which is acceptable to us).

To me, this is a question of historiography. Somewhere in the early centuries of the first millenium, there came to be an "official" history of the Church of Rome which seems to have been accepted for many centuries and not challenged until perhaps the Great Schism. I'm not aware of any direct challenges by the Orthodox Church to the claim of apostolic succession from Peter (their claim seems to be more about the nature of the Primacy of Simon Peter). I believe there may be some challenges arising from the Reformation but I need help here because I'm not sure. Then, we start in the 19th century with people like Baur (Bauer?) who do challenge the historicity of the official history. Apparently, even some Catholics endorse this view although it's not clear whether this is a majority or minority view among present-day Catholics. It appears from Harmakheru's interpretation of the Catechism that the challenged "historical facts" are not claimed by the Catechism. Unfortunately, we cannot use the absence of these "facts" in a Wikipedia article unless we can put Harmakheru's interpretation of their absence in the words of a reliable source.

Have I got this right? If so, how can we come up with a phrase or even a sentence or two that captures to the satisfaction of all involved?

--Richard (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not supposed to be about polls, but about strength of argument. Even if consensus, or the lack thereof, were to be based on a poll, the one above is obviously biased. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Which does establish one thing. After wording that would make Fox News blush, refactoring, wide publicity among WP:Catholicism, and so on, a minority stand up against "suppressing the facts of the Catholic view" (do they even agree on what Catholic view they favor?). That is tolerably good evidence that Nancy's text (as is, or as revised) is not consensus, and might well be snowed in a reasonably conducted poll. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

On the theological question: As far as I can tell, no Christian denomination both accepts Apostolic Succession as a meaningful concept and denies that (say) Gregory the Great was one of those possessing it. Benedict's position is somewhat different; the Great Schism arose, as our article does not say, over mutual claims that the Pope/the Patriarch of Constantinople had fallen into heresy - I do not know whether a heretic can transmit the Apostolic Succession, or whether there is consensus to an answer to this. (Hence the dubious tag; any article which omits filioque in discussing the Schism is open to doubt.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• As a practicing Catholic, I believe some latitude should be given to Nancy and other "proponents" (my term) of this article, e.g., regarding what the Catholic Church teaches. The article's title is "Catholic Church", not "Theological debate about the Catholic Church and its beliefs". At the same time, as a relatively new user/editor, I realize that Wikipedia depends on reliable sources, for the sake of "our" (Wikipedians') credibility. (For example, I recently saw on the Web that network-news anchor Brian Williams says there are seven errors in the Wikipedia article on him. One of those errors is probably the article's assertion that he is a Catholic; I was told he is an Episcopalian, even though he attended a Catholic high school, as do many non-Catholics.)

I agree with Richard's thought that "[w]hat ... would be more productive is to stop the voting and go back to discussing how to find a mutually agreeable text." (Emphasis added.) He also suggests to a fellow editor that "instead of challenging Nancy and Xandar to come up with sources to support what they want to say, why not look for the text that you can endorse which comes closest to what they want to say? (i.e. instead of being confrontational and contentious, let's try and help them find a solution which is acceptable to us)."

I don't know if this will help our discussion, but Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

In line with Richard's suggestion (two paragraphs above this), I would like to suggest that perhaps Nancy and others might look for the text that she and they can endorse which comes closest to what she and they want to say -- and which also tries to reflect or take into account the objections raised by other editors?

Eagle4000 (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should include the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, as the principal focus of the article. The only people to disagree with this are precisely Nancy and Xandar, who wish to add claims about "what historians believe", for which they have no unambiguous sources and which are not verified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What Richard suggests is what I have been trying to do all along - get the discussion onto POSITIVE lines, rather than sniping at every reference brought up, as some people have been trying to do. The reason why I and others think we DO need a historical view in the article is for comprehensiveness and accuracy. The Catholic Church believes it was founded by Jesus through Peter - yes, but perhaps the Fourteenth Antideluvian Church of South Calgary believes the same thing. What the reader needs to know as much as the claims is the historicity of the claims. Is there historical evidence for the Church's claims about its origin? In the case of the Catholic Church the answer is YES, and this therefore needs to be stated in the article. We can add that other modern historians may not agree for various reasons. But the fact of historical ageement with the claims needs to be made in the lead and the issue dealt with more clarity and fullness in the body text. For example the REASONS of those historians who deny the continuity from Peter need to be explained, as do those supportive of the Church's view.

In response to Eagle4000, I would suggest two separate sentences for the lead. One stating the Church's position. The other regarding historicity.

• The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in is consecration of Saint Peter.
• While some historians question this, other historians agree that the Church's foundation can be traced directly back to the original community founded in Rome at the time of the Apostles Peter and Paul.

How about that? Xandar 00:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I deny the {{accuracy}} of the second bullet point - what citation were you planning to use? (Note that I deny both the accuracy of the point stated, and deplore the suggestio falsi in the phrasing.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Mamalujo, please read what Xandar just wrote above. You said earlier, "opponents are acting as though the disputed material makes an historical judgment about the truth of the claim". Isn't that exactly what Xandar just said he is in fact trying to achieve with his preferred wording? He writes, "What the reader needs to know as much as the claims is the historicity of the claims. Is there historical evidence for the Church's claims about its origin? In the case of the Catholic Church the answer is YES, and this therefore needs to be stated in the article." Could the apologetic intent be made any clearer? Harmakheru (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, how about this wording:

• The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter.
• While some historians agree with this, other historians deny that the Church's foundation can be traced directly back to the original community in Rome or that this community was founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul.

This is at least as correct a statement as what you are proposing. Good enough? Harmakheru (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Harmakheru, up until today, I would have supported your proposed wording. However, now that I've taken a look at the Google Books excerpt from James Leslie Houlden that you provided, I have to say that I think we have artificially made this a dichotomy between the Church's teaching (theology) on one side and historians on the other side. Looking at Houlden's exposition of "modern Catholic theologians" from Loisy onwards, it seems that the "founding of the Church by Jesus" has a wide range of interpretation even among Catholic theologians. Thus, while we can say what the Catechism teaches, what is important is not only the fact that "some historians" (whatever we mean by that) dispute this but also that "some Catholic theologians" have less literal interpretations of this assertion than others. (All this reminds me of the creation story in Genesis; many Christians believe that God created the world but they don't believe it happened in six days or even in the order presented in the two creation stories in Book 1 of Genesis. Many Christians don't believe their faith rests on the creation having happened literally the way Genesis 1 describes it.)

Thus, I'm now leaning towards having the text in "Origin and Mission" say something along the lines of:

The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Simon Peter. The traditional narrative starts with Peter being consecrated by Jesus, followed by Peter traveling to Rome sometime after Pentecost, founding a church there, serving as its first bishop and consecrating Linus as bishop, thus starting the line of Popes of whom Benedict XVI is the current successor. The only part of this narrative that is supported directly by the Scriptures is the consecration of Peter; however, elements of the rest of the narrative are attested to in the writings of Church Fathers such as Ignatius, Irenaeus and Dionysius of Corinth. More recent Catholic and Protestant theological scholarship have challenged the historicity of the traditional narrative and, in response, have formulated a less literal interpretation of the "founding of the Church by Jesus".(Then add citations to Houlden and a selection of key scholars that he mentions)

--Richard (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I agree with the general thrust of your statement, although I would want to nuance some of the wording a bit here and there. My "proposal" to Xandar was an effort to demonstrate that his allegedly "neutral" wording is not really neutral, because as soon as you reverse the "some" and "others" it would become unacceptable to him. As Septentrionalis pointed out, Xandar's wording subtly but effectively implies that the position described in the "while" clause is less credible and probably less widely held than the position described in the main clause. That isn't NPOV, nor is it factually correct.

With respect to your proposed wording, I would change the last sentence to say: "More recent scholarship (Catholic, Protestant, and secular) has offered major challenges to the historicity of the traditional narrative, resulting in a widespread adoption of 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." This can be cited to a host of sources, including Houlden, Hinson, Rahner, Brown, Meier, Chadwick, Kelly, McBrien, O'Grady, etc., as well as the relevant paragraph(s) of the Catechism. Harmakheru (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely the miraculous draught and the gathering of the apostles come into the story too...Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Um...what "miraculous draught" are you talking about? And "gathering of the apostles"? The one in the Upper Room where Thomas insists on touching Jesus' wounds before he will believe in the resurrection? I'd like to see this stuff discussed somewhere in Wikipedia but probably not in this article (too much detail). --Richard (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

So... incorporating Harmakheru's suggestion, our current proposal looks like this:

The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Simon Peter. The traditional narrative starts with Peter being consecrated by Jesus, followed by Peter traveling to Rome sometime after Pentecost, founding a church there, serving as its first bishop and consecrating Linus as bishop, thus starting the line of Popes of whom Benedict XVI is the current successor. The only part of this narrative that is supported directly by the Scriptures is the consecration of Peter; however, elements of the rest of the narrative are attested to in the writings of Church Fathers such as Ignatius, Irenaeus and Dionysius of Corinth. More recent scholarship (Catholic, Protestant, and secular) has offered major challenges to the historicity of the traditional narrative, resulting in a widespread adoption of 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.

If Xandar and Nancy can find "modern Catholic theologians" (i.e. post-Loisy 20th-century theologians) who support the traditional narrative, we can add a sentence that acknowledges this minority view. As late as the 1970s, I was still taught the traditional narrative as history and I suspect that Nancy's experience as a recent convert led her to believe the same thing. It may well be that the teaching at the parish level differs from the thought of "modern Catholic theologians". If we can find a source that attests to that disconnect, we could include that in a Note.

--Richard (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with the second half of that. First of all using the term "Catholic Scholarship" would be a misnomer, as we have the Church's position, which is just the first half. I do not deny that scholars claiming to be Catholic make those claims or claims made by those scholars could be taken out of context to support a different POV, I would also point out that such a statement would be accusing said scholars of challenging Church teaching. The size constraints of this article don't allow for each point of view to be represented in proper context and frankly, this is not the place for that. Perhaps the "Criticisms of the Catholic Church" article? I know, doesn't solve the immediate problem, but this could go too far the wrong way. The point is to inform the reader about the Church. Period.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Polls should stay open for 7 days. I don't think we can find any scholars to support Richards version. Our present sources represent "modern scholars" who agree with the Church's version of their own history. NancyHeise ^talk 04:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you wrote "Polls should stay open for 7 days". On what do you base this assertion? I wonder if you are confusing straw polls with AFDs and RFAs which are supposed to stay open for at least 7 days. Have you read WP:POLL? AFAICT, there is no such rule for straw polls. But maybe you know Wikipedia policy better than I do.... feel free to educate me.

That said, there is also the concept embodied in WP:SNOW. My proposal to close this poll is based on the fact that, at this point, it would take at least 5 more !votes on the "Oppose" side to get a 2-1 majority (not really a consensus) and at least 11 more votes on the "Support" side to get a 2-1 majority. Given that a real consensus is more like 75-80%, I don't see the possibility of a consensus forming on either side. Thus, my proposal to close the poll with a "no consensus" result. The best thing we can do, IMO, is to spend less time !voting and more time discussing. I think we can reach a mutually agreeable solution if we focus on what the Catechism says and what the scholars described by Houlden say. --Richard (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, please (Quousque tandem abutere...?)... "I don't think we can find any scholars to support Richards version."? It sounds as if you have jumped in and given a knee-jerk ideologically entrenched reaction to my proposal without having followed and understood the rationale given for it.

Have you read the discussion above starting from where Harmakheru makes a proposal for Xandar to consider and read my alternate proposal with its rationale?

Have you read what Houlden wrote? Here's the link. Please read the section titled "Did Jesus Found the Church?" (p.209) and "Jesus and the Church in Modern Theology" (p.211). Houlden constitutes a scholarly citation for what I wrote and presumably we can find citations for the other Catholic theologians mentioned by Houlden. These include Alfred Loisy (excommunicated), Karl Rahner (one of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century according to Wikipedia), Edward Schillebeeckx, George Tavard. You might wish to check the Wikipedia articles on these Catholic theologians. These are not fringe scholars.

You might also wish to read my response to Mike Searson below. I don't mind engaging with you comparing sources and so on but I would appreciate you're following the discussion and reading the sources presented by the other side before dismissing them out-of-hand.

--Richard (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike, as you probably know, there is a wide latitude for divergent opinions about Catholic teaching. I don't dispute that some Catholic theologians can "go off the deep end" and have to be reeled back in or excommunicated. However, I think it is important for you to recognize that Catholic theologians probably have a better understanding of what the Church's teaching is than you do and probably have a good idea of what is "in bounds" and what is not. That's what Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are about. These protect the congregation from wrong teaching but they also help keep the writer out of ecclesiastical hot water. If the bishop says it's OK, he's putting his ecclesiastical ass on the line with you.

Have you read what Houlden wrote? Here's the link. Houlden writes "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." I don't claim to have understood the details of each theologian's perspective on the question. What I got from skimming Houlden's description of their views is that various theologians have different ways of explaining how the bishops can be "successors" of the apostles even if there is not an unbroken line of "personal succession".

At the end of this section, Houlden writes "The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) abandoned the standard Roman Catholic claim that Jesus instituted a church ruled by the apostles and their successors the bishops and presided over by Peter and his successors the popes. The ARCIC acknowledged that this claim could not be supported by the New Testament or the very early Church. In its place, ARCIC proposed an appeal to God's providential government of the Church, which had seen fit to allow the office of the bishop of Rome to develop into that of universal pastor."

So... Houlden makes two claims: one about "modern Catholic theologians" and another about the ARCIC. It is not sufficient here to wave one's hands in the air and say "Bah! They're challenging the Church's teaching (and so, by implication, Houlden must be wrong about modern Catholic theology)" It may well be that these theologians attempted to change the Church's teaching and failed. It would be useful to find other sources who discuss what these theologians wrote and what the impact of their thought was on the Church's teaching. It's hard for me to imagine that the Catholic representatives of the ARCIC would be allowed to agree to something that contradicted the Church's teaching.

--Richard (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Richard, please do not presume to tell me what my understanding of Church teaching is or who has a better understanding of it. It's often said that the difference between a Catholic Theologian and a Mafia Don is that the Mafia Don still believes in God.  :) That second part was a joke for all of you who lack a sense of humor and only speak English as a Second Language.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike, one cannot casually equate the traditional narrative with "the Church's position". We have the fact that Brown and Meier, who flatly reject major elements of the traditional narrative, nevertheless obtained the nihil obstat and imprimatur for their book embodying that rejection. We have the fact that neither Vatican II nor the current Catechism, as far as I can find, embrace the traditional narrative; instead they fall back on the "less specific claims" about Petrine primacy and Roman succession mentioned above, and allow the rest to lapse into a discreet silence. The 1985 Canon Law Commentary from the Canon Law Society of America (with nihil obstat and imprimatur), in its commentary on the canon most closely associated with the Petrine primacy (Canon 331), specifically declines to endorse the traditional narrative, saying: "Scholars argue that it is not necessarily a question of linear descent from Peter to one individual after another serving as bishop of Rome. It is possible that for some time the Church of Rome was governed not by a single individual bishop but by a college of church elders." And it goes on to refer this conclusion to "many scholars today, Catholic as well as Protestant". Even Vatican I, which made the strongest possible case for Petrine primacy and Roman succession, nevertheless is very careful in its canon on Roman primacy not to make any particular elements of the traditional narrative dogmatically binding, saying only that "If anyone shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter has a perpetual line of successors in the primacy over the universal Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy; let him be anathema." That's a pretty weak statement considering all that could have been said, but wasn't. Harmakheru (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Harmakheru, we have the Catechism which tells us the Church's position of its own origins. There is no dispute about what the Church thinks. We have to put this in the article. We also have scholars of various religious backgrounds who either agree or disagree with the Church's position of its own origins, we have expressed this in the article. What you are arguing over and over again is that there are some scholars who disagree - we already know that and its already in the article. NancyHeise ^talk 04:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, given your clear inability (or perhaps unwillingness) to accurately understand the sources that you yourself have adduced in support of your own position, you would be the last person I would ask to explain the Catechism to me. I know what the Catechism says. It doesn't say what you want it to say any more than your "sources" do. I have shown you the inadequacy of your sources time and again, sufficiently well that plenty of other people have understood and agreed, but talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. I'm not going to go through it all again with you, because I have no reason to believe it would do any good. Suffice it to say that you simply don't know what you're talking about, and that I consider further attempts to communicate with you to be a complete waste of time. Harmakheru (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also added this book by Jose Orlandis to support the consensus text. [40] NancyHeise ^talk 04:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard, a good source on the disconnect between traditional teaching and modern Catholic scholarship is Thomas P. Rausch, Reconciling Faith and Reason. One of the things he talks about at some length is the rise of a "Catholic fundamentalism" which defends what it sees as "Church teaching" without first really understanding the nuances and shadings which have always been a part of that teaching, resulting in a literalistic apologetic which is far more sure of itself than it ought to be. See: [41]. Harmakheru (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to take a look at it when I have more time. I'm sure I'll find Rausch's work personally fascinating but I suspect that it is a bit beyond the scope of this discussion. I'm wondering where Rausch's work would fit in Wikipedia. The only one that occurs to me is Roman Catholic theology but that doesn't seem like quite the right place either. If you can suggest a suitable article or even suggest a suitable new title, I'd be interested in pursuing it. --Richard (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard, that was just a personal aside in case you're interested in pursuing a better understanding of the phenomenon. I don't know where it would go in Wikipedia, either.

One last source to round things out. With respect to quantifying the range of scholarly opinion on this issue, it turns out there is actually some real scholarship on the subject: Byron R. Johnson, Dennis M. Doyle, and Michael H. Barnes, "Are There Two Catholicisms?", Sociological Analysis, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Winter, 1989), pp. 430-439, published by Oxford University Press.

The researchers did a survey of 277 professional Catholic theologians from the College Theology Society (CTS), a North American organization whose members are "predominately Catholic college teachers in departments of theology or religious studies in both public and private colleges in the United States and Canada". These theologians were asked to select which position on various issues was closest to their own. One of those questions had to do with the founding of the Church:

(A) Jesus founded the Catholic Church, including its offices of pope, bishop, and priest.

(B) As far as any evidence can show Jesus never intended to found a Church having particular offices.

Only thirteen percent of the sample selected "A".

Now given that Catholics represent approximately 25% of the population of the U.S. and Canada, and given that very few non-Catholics would ever select option "A", this suggests that in religious scholarship as a whole, at best less than 4% of scholars would agree that "Jesus founded the Catholic church, including its offices of pope, bishop, and priest."

So if anyone is particularly inclined to re-open the debate about "many" vs. "some", etc., I would suggest keeping this in mind. What Xandar and Nancy are calling "the Catholic position" garners only about one vote in 25 from people who are in a good position to know the current thinking of the discipline. That isn't properly characterized as "many", or even "some". In fact, if it weren't for the past historical importance of the traditional narrative, I'd be tempted to dismiss it entirely as one of those "fringe" positions which doesn't deserve being mentioned at all. Harmakheru (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Harmakheru states that a book with a Nihil obstat imprimatur disputes the Church's point of view on its own origins. I would like to point out that the official Church position is stated in the Catechism [42] and that there is a separate and higher approval given by the Bishops to books used for the purpose of Catechesis. The book we used to reference the Church's own views of its own origins is of this higher qualification, it is listed on the USCCB web site as one of the books approved for the purpose of Catechesis. Please read this explanation of how this process works [43]. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... I hate to go down this road but what we're seeing here is a divergence between Catholic theology and Catholic teaching. Not surprising... after all Catholic theology gave birth to Liberation theology which was later smacked down by JPII and his enforcer, Cardinal Ratzinger. I don't think we need to get too deep into this in the article but, the truth is, theologians are given more leeway than those teaching Catechism to the laity. I'm fine with documenting the disconnect in the article; I just don't think we need to spend much time on explaining it.

I looked at Jose Orlandis' book and yup, it relates the traditional narrative. The Wikipedia article on him characterizes him as a historian. I would comment that there is a difference between someone who writes history books and someone who does scholarly work in history. The article says that he was a Professor of Law and that his main work was on Visigothic Spain and Western Medieval Church. This suggests that he is not necessarily a subject matter expert on Early Christianity. Nonetheless, he is undoubtedly a reliable source and I have included him as a reference in my latest edit to the "Origin and Mission" section.

--Richard (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your latest edit does not give a page number or a quote. Since this matter is being discussed, it would be kind to allow all of us discussing the issue to see exactly what the scholar is saying so we can come to agreement on article text. NancyHeise ^talk 06:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you have now provided one, thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard, don't forget that "Catholic theology" also gave us Vatican II, which several popes have insisted was one of the high marks of the last several centuries of Catholic history. Many of the theologians who dominated the thought of Vatican II were suspected, persecuted, silenced, and punished in the years leading up to the Council, but their views were ultimately vindicated by nothing less than the collective judgment of 2500 bishops of the universal Church. We see the same thing happening with the traditional narrative about primacy and succession. For a century or more historians and theologians have been hammering away at it, insisting that it was insupportable and needed to be modified or abandoned; now it appears that the highest authorities of the Magisterium have decided that they were right, and they are allowing the traditional narrative to die a quiet death. That's how progress is made. It only becomes a problem when certain people refuse to get with the program and insist that the old ways are the only ways, and everyone else has to toe their personal line or else. These are the "Catholic fundamentalists" that Rausch laments. And we've got at least a couple of them in our midst here. Harmakheru (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, heh, Harmakheru, I wasn't intending to be quite so snarky about theologians but, on further reflection, I think the point is that there is a wide spectrum of theological thought from the Lefebvrists to the liberation theologists. We must be careful to distinguish theological speculation from the Magisterium. You say that "the authorities of the Magisterium ... are allowing the traditional narrative to die a quiet death". Well, it is the "quietness" of the death that keeps us from characterizing this trend as anything more than theological discussion. Sorry, but them's the rules of Wikipedia. It was quite enlightening to me personally to discover that it wasn't purely "Catholic teaching" vs. "Protestant and secular historians". Thank you once again for the Houlden reference. --Richard (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you boys read Jurgens and Meier? I'd like to include their perspectives on a few things regarding history.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please Mike, I welcome some more perspectives, thank you! NancyHeise ^talk 07:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Jurgens and Meier but that's to be expected;my role in Wikipedia is more of a synthesizer of knowledge presented by others. Can you enlighten us as to what their perspectives are? This discussion is a bit high up on the Talk Page and so it might be more useful if you start a new section at the bottom to make it easier for us to find stuff. --Richard (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Harmakheru's post - you seem to be equating the ARCIC with the Magisterium - the ARCIC is a separate organization with no binding authority over the Church - it does not represent official Catholic teaching or position on the issue of the Church's origins. NancyHeise ^talk 07:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Phew! So many reams of comment since my last post yesterday! Responding to the major points:

• I'm not sure on what basis my proposed sentence "While some historians question this, other historians agree that the Church's foundation can be traced directly back to the original community founded in Rome at the time of the Apostles Peter and Paul." has been ignored. This is quite easy to reference and I can see no credible objection. The idea that it is "apologetic" to state the historical background to the Churches origin in an encyclopedia article about the Church is breathtaking!
• The idea that the "traditional narritive" is somehow now a "minority view" is also mind-boggling. I don't think standard reference texts like the Oxford Church History base their coverage on minority views.
• We seem to be drifting from quoting Historians to Theologians. And most of the theologians quoted as challenging what I would term the established view of the Church's origin, people like Loisy, Schilebeeckx and Tavard, consist of radical liberals who represent one rarified band of the spectrum. Neither their personal views, musings on the intentions of Jesus, nor those alleged to belong to committees like ARCIC, change in any way the view of the Church, which is set out in the official documents and pronouncements.
• Similarly surveys of members of a US Catholic theology society have ZERO validity in this argument. A survey of liberal self-appointed US school "theologians" has about as much value, (perhaps less) than a survey of Catholic taxi drivers. Fortunately the sort of people who get posts in US colleges teaching theology do not decide the viewpoint of the Church. As has become notorious, such people have become so infected by liberal-critical orthodoxy that they have become perhaps the most disbelieving component of the religious community.

But again we are getting on to irrelevant agendas. What we are discussing is the historical origin of the Church, and that can be related quite simply. Xandar 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I didn't "ignore" your proposed language, I simply proposed a slight modification to it:

• The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter.
• While some historians agree with this, other historians deny that the Church's foundation can be traced directly back to the original community in Rome or that this community was founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul.

You have not yet said whether this language would be acceptable to you. Would it? And if not, why?

In response to your other points:

• The Oxford Dictionary of Christianity does not support the traditional narrative. Ditto for the Oxford Dictionary of Popes, which explicitly rejects major elements of it. In fact, it seems to be difficult these days to find a reputable mainstream historical work which takes the traditional narrative seriously at all, except to debunk it. Why do you think that is?

• It is true that the official view of the Church is set out in its official documents and pronouncements. It is also true that for the past fifty years or so these documents and pronouncements have largely backed away from the traditional narrative. Why do you think that is?

• It is true that the opinions of theologians do not decide the viewpoint of the Church; neither do the opinions of historians. So why is it that you and Nancy insisted on dragging theologians and historians into the discussion in the first place? (This is where the accusation of "apologetics" comes in.)

It is precisely because surveys, opinions of theologians, and similar sources are so intrinsically controversial and so hard to quantify that many of us have objected to dragging them into the picture at all. We were content to state what the Church's official doctrine was and leave it at that, without trying to bring in "many historians" as outside testimony to the "truth" of that doctrine--but you have absolutely refused to back down on this point. You are the one who has insisted on equating the official position with the traditional narrative, and then further insisting that some gaggle of scholars and historians be pressed into service to lend support to that narrative. Now it turns out that, according to the best evidence we have, most scholars (historians or otherwise) no longer accept the traditional narrative, and no longer support the Church's official position--and suddenly you are screaming foul. Do you understand why those of us on the other side of the argument might find that a bit ironic? Harmakheru (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Church view of its own origins

One editor on this page is saying that there is no single view held by the Church regarding its own origins. They are citing various Catholic theologians who agree or disagree on its origins to support this assertion. The Catholic Church has one official POV on its origins and this is in the Catechism. We have referenced this in the text. Karanacs has suggested to the editor making this claim that he/she persist in this effort.[44] This is outrageous. NancyHeise ^talk 05:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Harmakheru states that a book with a Nihil obstat imprimatur disputes the Church's point of view on its own origins. I would like to point out that the official Church position is stated in the Catechism and that there is a separate and higher approval given by the Bishops to books used for the purpose of Catechesis. The book we used to reference the Church's own views of its own origins One Faith, One Lord is of this higher qualification, it is listed on the USCCB web site as one of the books approved for the purpose of Catechesis. Please read this explanation of how this process works [45]. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's also categorized on Google Books as "juvenile nonfiction". Since you rely so heavily on the Google metadata for vetting other books, don't you think this ought to give you pause? Or are you admitting that your understanding of what the Church teaches is "juvenile"? Harmakheru (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is listed on the USCCB site as for young adults - like those who go to universities. NancyHeise ^talk 06:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's listed on the USCCB site as an "elementary series" for "school and parish" at the 7th and 8th grade level. How many middle school students do you know of who "go to universities"? Harmakheru (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey boys, can we keep it civil? Comment on content, not contributors. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, Nancy, let's keep within the bounds of rational discourse. You got kids. I got them too. You've probably been in a public library. I've been in one too. Go there and ask for the "Young Adult" section and then report back what kind of books you find there. --Richard (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

USCCB says it is for teenagers and young adults. I think they mean that the two are different, not the same as you are implying. I teach religious education, I was required to use this book. NancyHeise ^talk 07:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the ARCIC is not part of the Catholic Church. It is an organization unto itself, its rulings are not equivalent to official Catholic position. The new text added by Richard has a quote about ARCIC but does not have any kind of link so Reader can see what this organization is. I think we need to provide that lest Reader be misled. NancyHeise ^talk 07:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the reference. I think it does add information but it is not critical to the point and I don't think we are well served by engaging in yet another tussle over something like this. --Richard (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Compromise text for "Origin and mission"

OK, it appears that Nancy and I are approaching some sort of compromise for text in the "Origin and mission" section. The current text reads:

The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Simon Peter.[22][41] The traditional narrative starts with Peter being consecrated by Jesus, followed by Peter traveling to Rome sometime after Pentecost, founding a church there, serving as its first bishop and consecrating Linus as bishop, thus starting the line of Popes of whom Benedict XVI is the current successor. This narrative is often related in histories of the Catholic Church.[23] The only part of this narrative that is supported directly by the Scriptures is the consecration of Peter; however, elements of the rest of the narrative are attested to in the writings of Church Fathers such as Ignatius, Irenaeus and Dionysius of Corinth. Largely as a result of a challenge to this narrative initiated by Alfred Loisy, some theologians have challenged the historicity of the traditional narrative, resulting in 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.[43][44]

The above text is preceded by the following "orphan" sentence:

Some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus[23][24][26]

If it were up to me I would have just deleted it altogether but, in the interest of collegiality, I figured I'd leave it as is pending further discussion in this section. I think some variation of the sentence could be inserted into the above paragraph but I have concerns about the phrase "some scholars" and the general assertion that they "agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus". Let's hash out these issues at Source discussion regarding scholarly dispute on origins

In the meantime, does anybody have comments that they want to make about the current text of the "Origin and mission" section?

--Richard (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with these two sentences The only part of this narrative that is supported directly by the Scriptures is the consecration of Peter; however, elements of the rest of the narrative are attested to in the writings of Church Fathers such as Ignatius, Irenaeus and Dionysius of Corinth. because neither reference 43 or 44 says anything like this. NancyHeise ^talk 07:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find appropriate secondary sources for this. Are you just asking for sources or do you challenge the truth of the assertion? The New Testament says nothing about Peter going to Rome and the primary source for the "traditional narrative" are the writings of the Church Fathers. I will refer you for now to the article on Simon Peter specifically the section titled Connection to Rome. That section is very badly written and relies on primary sources. We can hope that someday the prose will be cleaned up and secondary sources will be substituted for primary sources. Until then, that is the single most concise exposition of this topic that I am aware of. --Richard (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Because everything in this section gets disputed, even the most obvious things like the fact that some scholars agree with Church POV of its own origins - I am just suggesting that you do not insert any text unless you have a valid source to support the actual wording. NancyHeise ^talk 08:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

OK... I'll look for better sources but you can find them all over the place. This stuff is not in dispute (that is, no one disputes that Irenaeus, Ignatius, Tertullian and Dionysisus of Corinth wrote these things. Some people may dispute whether Irenaeus was mistaken when he wrote of the papal succesion). --Richard (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as I reread the sentences in question, I find that I have a different problem with them. In an effort to be brief, I left out some events that are mentioned in the New Testament. These include the "binding and loosing", the Great Commission, Pentecost, etc. We will have to fix this text to include these important parts of the narrative. However, it's late and I'm going to turn in. I think we're making great progress. I hope everybody else thinks so too.

--Richard (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, I was thinking the same thing, I tweaked the text a bit and trimmed it, please have a look. NancyHeise ^talk 15:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed expansion of "Origin and mission" text

I was just reminded that while the discussion was raging on this Talk Page, I took a break and expanded the Simon Peter article with this text:

However, some historians have challenged this traditional view of Peter's role in the early Roman Church.

I would like to merge that in with the existing text like this:

The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Simon Peter. The traditional narrative starts with Peter being consecrated by Jesus, followed by Peter traveling to Rome sometime after Pentecost, founding a church there, serving as its first bishop and consecrating Linus as bishop, thus starting the line of Popes of whom Benedict XVI is the current successor. This narrative is often related in histories of the Catholic Church. The only part of this narrative that is supported directly by the Scriptures is the consecration of Peter; however, elements of the rest of the narrative are attested to in the writings of Church Fathers such as Ignatius, Irenaeus and Dionysius of Corinth. Largely as a result of a challenge to this narrative initiated by Alfred Loisy, some theologians have challenged the historicity of the traditional narrative, resulting in 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. Some historians have also challenged the traditional narrative of Peter's role in the early Roman Church.

References

Obviously, there will have to be a cleanup and integration of dupicate references. What I'm asking for right now is whether Raymond Brown, John Meier, Oscar Cullman and Henry Chadwick can be accurately characterized as "historians" in contrast to the theologians mentioned by Houlden.

--Richard (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your text looks eminently sensible to me. Certainly Chadwick is a well known historian in the field. Peter jackson (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

These sources are not decisively saying he was not bishop of Rome, they are saying that they do not know concretely if he was noting only that Irenaeus' letter is the only surviving piece of paper to say this. I think its like the evolutionary theory of man, scientists are not sure we evolved from lesser life forms but they think we did - as there are gaps in the scientific record does not necessarily mean concretely that it did not happen. This is exactly what Duffy was saying, we used Duffy to show Reader that there are some scholars who believe this. I prefer our previous wording that also illustrated the same thing which you are presenting here as something new when it is not. This paragraph duplicates information that is currently in Origins and Mission in the following paragraph that discusses the See of Rome as a doctrinal authority. We need to find a way to merge these two paragraphs or eliminate the redundancy. NancyHeise ^talk 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that we are trying to support the sense of "many", yea, even "most". The entire preceding discussion has focused on Harmakheru's suggestion that the consensus of theologians and historians is that it never happened the way the traditional narrative relates it. I suspect that the discussion from here on out is now going to focus on whether we can say "Many historians challenge" or even "Most historians dismiss" instead of "Some historians have challenged". This is why we need so many citations. We need to make sure the reader understands that this is not the challenge of one sole historian but rather a number of historians. The question to resolve is whether this represents just a group of historians who might constitute 20-30% of the field or an overwhelming consensus. No one has provided a citation that establishes that. For that matter, even the Houlden book doesn't make it clear that this is the mainstream of modern theological thought although the fact that the ARCIC abandoned the traditional Catholic narrative suggests that it's not a fringe theory. --Richard (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems on the right lines to me, although these highly summarized positions are still expressed somewhat over-starkly I think. The fact is there is next to no direct evidence bearing directly on the very early years, which of course has not stopped tens of thousands of pages being written on the period, almost all of which (matters of faith apart) has to be regarded as including a very large element of speculation. "Challenged" occurs twice in the new text; I would rather see emphasis on a broad spectrum of views, all severely handicapped by lack of evidence. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard, with respect to establishing what is the "mainstream" position: I posted something on this above, but it seems to have gotten lost in the clutter, so here it is again:

With respect to quantifying the range of scholarly opinion on this issue, it turns out there is actually some real scholarship on the subject: Byron R. Johnson, Dennis M. Doyle, and Michael H. Barnes, "Are There Two Catholicisms?", Sociological Analysis, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Winter, 1989), pp. 430-439, published by Oxford University Press.

The researchers did a survey of 277 professional Catholic theologians from the College Theology Society (CTS), a North American organization whose members are "predominately Catholic college teachers in departments of theology or religious studies in both public and private colleges in the United States and Canada". These theologians were asked to select which position on various issues was closest to their own. One of those questions had to do with the founding of the Church:

(A) Jesus founded the Catholic Church, including its offices of pope, bishop, and priest.

(B) As far as any evidence can show Jesus never intended to found a Church having particular offices.

Only thirteen percent of the sample selected "A".

Now given that Catholics represent approximately 25% of the population of the U.S. and Canada, and given that very few non-Catholics would ever select option "A", this suggests that in religious scholarship as a whole, at best less than 4% of scholars would agree that "Jesus founded the Catholic church, including its offices of pope, bishop, and priest."

I don't know if this "establishes" the mainstream position, but it comes pretty close. Harmakheru (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And what % had the good sense to answer "Don't know"? Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't one of the options, but apparently 38 out of the 277 didn't answered the question at all; these are probably a combination of "Don't know", "Don't want to say", "Don't think this is a reasonable question", and so forth. Still, the point remains: only 13% were willing to embrace the "traditional" position as their own--and that's among Catholic theologians. Harmakheru (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I did see the original post but thanks for the reminder. Last night, I was focused on getting the basic text down first and decided to defer dealing with this information as a second-order concern (i.e. I "back-burnered" it). It's hard enough integrating all this while contending with editors who have opposing views. Every word has to be carefully chosen to not cross over the tripwire which will trigger a challenge.

My concern with this survey is that it represents only one data point. I think it's worth referencing in a note but I'm not sure it's enough to assert that the mainstream of Catholic theologians reject the "traditional narrative".

--Richard (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Harmakheru, while I buy what you say about the "at best 4% of scholars..." but it's OR and we can't use it. However, what I think we really need is to know what percent chose option B. I could back into the number using the 13% supporting option A and 38/277 who didn't answer the question but I'd rather use the number or percentage reported in the study. --Richard (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sample size was 277. Thirty-eight did not provide a usable answer to the question. Of the 239 who did, 13% chose option "A" and 86% chose option "B".

Also, let's not forget E. Glenn Hinson's The Church Triumphant: A History of Christianity up to 1300 (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.

Hinson is a recognized scholar, Mercer University Press is a recognized scholarly press, and no original research is necessary--just a straight quotation from Hinson's own words. Harmakheru (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• What historians have accepted the traditional view? We have seen none, and when the NCE dismisses it as ill-founded, we are unlikely to find the many that Richard's text would imply.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... check the citations. These are the historians that Nancy and Xandar want to invoke in support of the "traditional narrative". I have my doubts about Jose Orlandis as being a scholar and I've expressed those concerns above. The issues with the Derrett and Norman citations have been gone over several times on this page but Nancy and presumably Xandar seem to be unconvinced (witness her section below asking for discussion of sources).

The current text in the "Origin and mission" section doesn't explicitly say that "historians" agree with the traditional narrative. Mostly it says "scholars" which is a concession on the part of Nancy (and hopefully Xandar will agree).

We next have to consider whether to characterize the scholars that agree as "few" (cf. the Hinson quote provided by Harmakheru above).

--Richard (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

While Derrett and Norman appear to be scholars, they neither agree with the traditional narrative nor do they say scholars do. They do not verify that assertion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Harmakheru has been pointing this out but Nancy (in particular) and Xandar have rejected his arguments in this regard. Is there anything else that can be added to the already voluminous discussion that might convince them? --Richard (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary section break

• The CCC text quoted several times in these discussions does not begin with the "consecration" of Peter - a term itself smacking of OR - but with Mark 3:14-15: et fecit ut essent duodecim cum illo et ut mitteret eos praedicare et dedit illis potestatem curandi infirmitates et eiciendi daemonia, the Gathering of the Twelve apostles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't get away with any sloppiness around here, eh? I admit that the "begins with the consecration of Peter" bit is mine and I admit that my mastery of the Catechism and the Bible is deficient. (Geez, I omitted to mention the Great Commission and Pentecost!) I'll go back and check the Catechism text and the "Gathering of the Twelve" and get back to you. Thanks for catching that. --Richard (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Mostly a matter of having checked citations here. If we were not being leaned on by a handful of advocates, there would be a fairly clear consensus to hand: follow CCC $765, as dogma, and describe it as doctrine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of "consecration" in this context bothers me. As far as I can find (and I looked at every single instance of the term as reported by a Catechism search engine), the Catechism never explicitly associates the term "consecration" with Simon Peter at all (except perhaps as just another member of the apostolic group), and it would be hard to specify exactly what this alleged consecration was or in what context it is supposed to have taken place. As always, I think it is safer in such matters to use the exact terminology of Scripture, the Catechism, and magisterial documents instead of inventing our own language or re-appropriating language from some other context--with possibly unforeseen results. Harmakheru (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Boy this is a real pain in the ass to try to respond to on account of section lengths. Consecration may be too strong a word, check pp. 224-225 of Meir's A Marginal Jew Vol 3., Peter was definitely the head of the 12, and was renamed by Christ, I wouldn't call him "just another member".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that Peter was head of the Twelve, etc. What I meant was that the only time the Catechism uses the term "consecration" with respect to Peter is when it is talking about the "consecration" of the apostles as a group, with no special reference to any Petrine primacy. For example (and this may be the only one): "1562 Christ, whom the Father hallowed and sent into the world, has, through his apostles, made their successors, the bishops namely, sharers in his consecration and mission ..." This states that the bishops, and by extension the apostles before them, were "made sharers in [Christ's] consecration", etc. But a search for paragraphs containing both "Peter" and "consecrated" or "consecration" yields zero results. To my mind this suggests that "consecration" is not the right language to use for describing the setting apart of Peter for his unique role. Harmakheru (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that the traditional narrative "begins with the consecration of Peter"; however, I don't think that I coined the phrase "consecration of Peter" I don't have a clear memory of where I got it. It seems to me it was already in the article but a random check of past versions don't bear this out. A Google search for "consecration of Peter" turns up a bunch of unrelated uses of the phrase. The only related uses of the phrase are by Wikipedia and its clones. I'm open to changing the wording because I myself thought that "consecration of Peter" was a bit questionable when I wrote that sentence . --Richard (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

How about this for the lead:

The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community originally founded by Jesus upon the apostles and prophets, 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.

I think this is a clearer statement of what the Church actually teaches about itself, and serves to clearly distinguish the claims of the Catholic Church from those of other churches; it is also expressed almost entirely in language straight out of the Church's own documents, and can easily be cited to them. Harmakheru (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That would resolve the present conflict. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, thanks for adding the "Peter" link in this text. I've gone ahead and added a bunch of others as well. To answer the question you raised in your edit summary on the history page, it seems to be traditional to use Simon Peter's full name in this context; I suspect it harks back to the emphatic use of both names by Jesus himself (as well as the gospel author) in Matthew 16:13-20, and in fact the only places where the Catechism itself uses the name "Simon Peter" is in this precise context (para. 442, 552, and 1444). It also makes the text more accessible to non-Catholics who may be reading it. (This is the lead, after all.) Harmakheru (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I also just added a bunch of references to the corresponding sections of the Catechism to document pretty much everything these two sentences say. In the process I accidentally broke the previous reference to Catechism 881 that was referenced in several other places, but apparently a Bot caught it and fixed it (I hope). My apologies if this causes anyone any problems. Harmakheru (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably; it may also be making some subtle point on when Peter attained sainthood. Non-Catholics also (and more commonly) speak of Saint Peter; other Christians agree he is a saint, and non-Christians will know of him through Christian references (including jokes about a gate-keeper on a cloud). But Simon Peter is recognizable enough with a link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review the current text of "Origin and mission"

OK, we have made (I hope) significant progress on this section. I have been focusing my efforts here because I think it is very difficult to agree on what the lead should say if we haven't agreed on the detail that it is supposed to be summarizing.

I fear that Xandar will come back on Monday and vomit all over the work that we have done but that is just a risk that we have to take. Nancy has been helping us make sure everything is sourced properly.

I put a {{citation needed}} tag on the text about Alfred Loisy. The statement is already sourced to the Houlden book but I think it would be better to have a direct citation to Loisy's work if anyone can find one.

Any other suggestions for improvement would be welcomed.

--Richard (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether this is vomiting or not - or whether the repast is just too nauseous, I think this passage has become too long, repetitive and wordy. It definitely needs a trim.

In particular the sentence "There is some indication that this challenge represents the mainstream of contemporary Catholic theologians." along with the accompanying note, is insupportable. As I stated above, a poll of a self-selecting group of liberal US theology teachers is in no way representative of the either the view of the worldwide church or the historical record - which is what we are discussing here - not the theories of a certain group of self-styled theologians. I also do not think that Duffy merits two separate mentions in this section. Xandar 22:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read the quotation from the New Catholic Encyclopedia above, since you have not. Castelot was certainly American, but liberal? self-selecting? (And I see no evidence of the poll being self-selecting, either; its makers seem to have done a far better job of sampling and of phrasing than the poll here.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently anyone who disagrees with Xandar's view of things is either a "fringe historian", a "liberal revisionist", a "self-styled theologian", or a member of a "self-selecting group" of apostates. Once he has disqualified all these from consideration (which is very nearly everyone), then he can confidently claim that the mainstream view (among those who remain) supports his position. It's a very convenient approach, but hardly convincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with him. Harmakheru (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And any group of random people who agree with Harmakheru immediately become the "mainstream" or the "scholarly consensus", even when the views expressed are clearly no such thing. Xandar 23:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I see there is a new quotation. At least this time we are quoting someone who does himself hold that Jesus founded the Catholic Church; but the quotation is ingeniously cropped (the full text does not say that the Holy Pun founded the Church; it gives as much wieght to Christ's reappearance and more to Pentecost). Is Orlandis a historian? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • He appears to have a good reputation as a historian of Visigothic Law; I would be content to describe him as such. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • If I understand Pmanderson|Septentrionalis's comment above (23:58, 24 October 2009; just above this subsection's header), he suggests that "there would be a fairly clear consensus to hand: follow CCC $765, as dogma, and describe it as doctrine."

In addition to sec. 765, we could also add two more sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) as part of the Catholic Church's teaching on this issue. Section 880 says: "When Christ instituted the Twelve, 'he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter ....' Just as 'by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united with one another.' " (Emphasis added.) Section 881 says: "The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the 'rock' of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. 'The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.' This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope." (Emphasis added.)

--Eagle4000 (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • I just noticed another section, 882, that could be aded: "The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, 'is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.' 'For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.' " Eagle4000 (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
      • These are certainly relevant; they should be mentioned: carefully, without overreading, and without imposing an interpretation. The last should probably be mentioned in the immediate context of the First Vatican Council, whose decision it represents - another reason to be cautious about sources before 1870. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)