Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 53

Could we please agree to omit the following passage?

The church interprets the

James the Just

, not Peter, [Citations] and the hierarchical structure established for the Roman church a century later.[Citations]

We would keep only this:

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

The passage that I propose for deletion makes far from easy reading, and has many question-raising elements. For instance, it isn't the Confession of Peter that is interpreted as stated, but instead the response of Jesus to Peter, reported only in (the heavily discussed) Matthew 16:17–19. The adjective "temporal" in "the temporal head of his Church" is ambiguous and question-raising. The generic indication "Historians" is misleading (weasel language?) in that it suggests there is scholarly consensus on whatever is meant by the following phrase. If this is about a supposed belief that there is "a direct connection" between the apostles taken jointly and the Church in Rome, rather than for the Church as a whole, it is a straw-man argument - but I suppose that is not what is meant. The citations given do not in fact state that the Apostles of Jesus were led by James the Just.

The second part (from "Historians do not find...") exists only as a response to the first part. I don't think the first part is worth keeping. Why not omit both parts of the text together? If someone agrees with me, please delete the text from the article. It would be best to omit the text permanently, but if there are editors who want it restored, let them discuss and amend it here before restoring it in a revised form. Esoglou (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Since a part (only) of this passage has been deleted, I am making bold to delete the whole passage, in the hope that it will instead be discussed here. The part that remained was without citation of a reliable source, apart from links to primary sources. Esoglou (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources do state "that the Apostles of Jesus were led by James the Just." There were many sources given; I can quote the ones that speak to this, if you can't access the texts. There is "scholarly consensus" among secular historians on these points. The current revised history intro still cites only the Catholic Church and still contains only Catholic doctrine, "Catholic doctrine teaches." This is not the scholarly consensus and by definition not NPOV history. (It is the Catholic POV of the Catholic Church's history.) I think this sentence would have to be deleted or balanced by the consensus of secular and non-Catholic historians to be NPOV history. The lede is a privileged position and the history section lede should, I think, be NPOV history. Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Do they? If I am mistaken, I apologize for stating so plainly what I said. Eusebius speaks of James as head of the church in Jerusalem, not as head of the apostles. The last ones tell what the Gospel of Thomas and (other) legends say, but do the authors of the books accept what the legends say? Serious modern books recount the legends about Mary Magdalene without saying that she went to the south of France and died there. Esoglou (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The

synoptic gospels, which were, until yesterday, a part of the history lede. It is dated by many scholars to be as old a source (or older) than some synoptic gospels. Are gospels "legends" if the Catholic Church later declared them non-canonical at a time when it was centralizing power? It is POV to consider only sources approved of by the later church (and will by definition only support Catholic doctrine). Your, perhaps Catholic, interpretation of what Eusebius' statement means, is not the interpretation of the historians cited, if you read them. The historians suggest that the early church in Jerusalem was the community of the apostles, and James was their head. I'll copy out the text of one further source, "Peter, under the authority and supervision of James, devoted himself to directing the Christian mission among the Jews. James, as head of the mother church, thus became the most influential and most respected authority in the movement. Some scholars see him as a kind of first pope, exercising effective power over the other churches. Others regard him more as primes inter pares, with little means of imposing an authority which was more moral and spiritual than real outside some churches depending on Jerusalem. This scheme has been defended, with more or less important variants, by numerous Protestant scholars including Oscar Cullmann, Maurice Goguel, Etienne Trocme, Martin Hengel, and Christian Grappe." (from Pierre-Antoine Bernheim, James, Brother of Jesus, p. 192). Piledhighandeep (talk

) 20:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

While a mere reporting of the Gospel of Thomas is no more a reliable source for Wikipedia than a direct quotation of any of the canonical gospels, you have good sources regarding the view on the position of James the Just as head over the apostles, without perhaps being one of their number. So I withdraw that part of what I said. Perhaps you can clarify the apparent stating of a "direct connection" between the apostles taken jointly and the specific Church in Rome. I presume I misunderstood you. Esoglou (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

In any case, is, effectively, skipping the first two centuries of the church's history, rather than presenting the differing theories about them, the best way to address this? I think some other solution will need to be found, at least for the History of the Catholic Church article, which suffers from the same exact lede issues and in which, presumably, the first two centuries of the church will have to be addressed. Piledhighandeep (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What two centuries? What comes before "Conditions in the Roman Empire facilitated the spread of new ideas. The empire's well-defined network of roads and waterways facilitated travel, and the Pax Romana made travelling safe"? Esoglou (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The Pax Romana is the history of the Roman Empire, not the church. The history of the church begins with "In 313, Emperor Constantine I's Edict of Milan legalized Christianity" or else the vague "persecutions were a defining feature of Christian self-understanding until Christianity was legalised in the 4th century." The church's history and evolution before 300 (two centuries at least) is not now discussed except for the doctrinal statement still found in the history lede, "Catholic doctrine teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community established by Jesus." This is, as stated, the POV of the Catholic Church (doctrine), and not NPOV history, nor the mainstream historical consensus. Piledhighandeep (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The Roman Empire was the ambience in which the Christian Church grew and with which, because of refusing recognition to the gods that the Empire accepted, it found itself in conflict. So it is very much part of the history of the Christian Church in the first centuries. There are other things we can and should add, but not polemically, as in the text that I asked to be provisionally omitted, and not in the manner of an excursus that in Wikipedia would be the subject of a distinct article. You want the question of episcopacy in Rome to be included. Why not indeed? What do you think of including the text now in Pope#Early Christianity (c. 30–325)? At least as an interim solution. If you agree, we can see whether others do also. Esoglou (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Esoglou I agree that that text could be an interim solution. I'd like to add some further citations to it, but it does seem like a possible place to start. Also, I didn't mean to imply Roman empire history shouldn't be there. I agree with you. I was only trying to say that we were losing church specific history from the early period as a result of the attempts to eliminate contentious content. Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Church teaches that Peter is the first Bishop of Rome. Elizium23 (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

The discussion has become quieter here, but it would be great if someone neutral could apply some of what we've discussed to the first paragraph of the History of the Catholic Church article. Piledhighandeep (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is commonly said that Saint Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Even by Eastern Orthodox. Take Bishop Kallistos Ware as an example. I accept that Saint Peter can be called bishop of Rome in an analogous sense, not as we today understand the word "bishop", the sense in which Piledhighanddeep denies it. (Piledhighanddeep probably would object even to an analogous understanding of the phrase.) What I question is that the Church teaches that Saint Peter was the first bishop of Rome. I know of no such declaration by the Church. Of course, I may be wrong. If others accept a wording that simply reports what is commonly said, there should be no problem, perhaps not even for Piledhighanddeep. Esoglou (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a teaching of the Church, according to the patristic record laid out in the Catholic Encyclopedia. This is part of

Sacred Tradition. St. Cyprian, Firmilian of Caesarea, Tertullian, Hippolytus, St. Irenaeus, and the poem "Adversus Marcionem" all attest to this constant teaching going back to the second century. Elizium23 (talk

) 01:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have trouble believing the Catholic Encyclopedia for some reason, here is the Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, English and Latin text. Search for "primacy". This document "includes all basic texts of Catholic teachings, it is a compendium of faith through the centuries." You will not find extraneous non-teachings in it. Elizium23 (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Catholic Church holds that the Pope is the successor of Peter. That does not mean that the Catholic Church holds that Peter was bishop of Rome, although George Joyce, whom you cite, obviously (from the way he interprets Tertullian and Pope Stephen) thought it does. Joyce also argues that Irenaeus said Peter was bishop of Rome, but argues explicitly against a scholar who held the opposite point of view. Tertullian and Firmilian are not Fathers of the Church. Joyce does not state that his view is Catholic Church teaching. Your argument that it is Catholic Church teaching is not a Wikipedia-reliable source for stating that it is.

Read S. W. J. O'Malley's chapter on "Peter: Bishop of Rome?" He does not accept that Peter was bishop of Rome in the normal sense; but he concludes that, in view of the certainty that Peter, who had preeminence in the early Christian church in general, was in Rome, "Peter can, with qualification but justly, be called the first bishop of Rome. And if he is the first bishop of Rome, then he is the first pope." That ought to satisfy you with regard to the reality. Of course, O'Malley is speaking as a historian. He too says nothing about a supposed Catholic Church teaching that Peter was bishop of Rome or, for that matter, that he was a bishop.

A question for Piledhighanddeep. What need is there to insert into this article speculation on when precisely Rome first had a monoepiscopus, about which there is no Catholic Church teaching? Putting it in would seem a controversy-seeking irrelevance. Esoglou (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no need to insert it unless others do. I only see NPOV issues in the history section when the church's specific claims about its history are presented without any counterpoint by non-partisan (secular and non-Catholic) historical scholars. Piledhighandeep (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1

There is no standard, rule, policy, or even suggestion on wikipedia that sources be "secular and non-Catholic". Demanding that they be so is actually the real bias problem here.

Shouldn't we be using Catholic sources to say what the Catholics say (as in "Catholics say blah blah blah")? Luthien22 (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. But that is an abstract question. Concretely, the actual question here is: "What does the Catholic Church say?" Esoglou (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point, I think (and there is a rule for not including only one-sided sources, it is called

WP:NPOV). Catholic sources are for what Catholic's say, that is called doctrine. Confusing doctrine with history is the root of the POV problem (see historicity). Doctrine (what Catholic's say about their history) is not their actually history and presenting only the Catholic POV, without another POV (that of other historical scholars), is not NPOV history. It is fine for other parts of this article, but not for the history section. Piledhighandeep (talk

) 18:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, the article does not state that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. I think that, if anyone wants to discuss some other question about history and/or belief, it should be done under another heading. Otherwise, this section will wander off in several directions from what it is supposed to be about. Esoglou (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You can find the document in the archives for the Vatican for 1960. That is ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS 52 (1960), p. 553 at the end. Here is a link: "www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2052%20[1960]%20-%20ocr.pdf"--Coquidragon (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Piledhighandeep. We know Peter was in Rome. He died in Rome. From Church's writings, we know that many historical figures dating back to the 1st Century considered him first Bishop of Rome. What type of sources do you want? A secular secular source that says so? And which source will that secular source use if not the writings of Church Figures? You can't go NPOV on this, because there is nothing outside of the Church to attest to this, because at the time, nobody else cared. Besides, this is not doctrine, this is not about faith. It is a version of History, without reliable sources against it.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Arbitrary break #2

@Esoglou. "Peter died in Rome," is not an article of faith, it is Church history. "Peter was the first Pope," is not an article of faith, it is Church history. "Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome," is not an article of faith, it is Church history, as it is history that he was also the first bishop of Antioch and Syracuse. "The Pope is Peter's successor," is not an article of Faith. Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome and the 1st Pope. By definition, those that came behind are the successors. This is not doctrine. I really don't get your point. The matter of faith would be what that means in terms of inheriting his primacy. That's another matter.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Lumen gentium is one example of a Church document that seems to me to teach as a matter of faith that the Pope is Peter's successor and that thus goes beyond merely calling him "Peter's successor" as people call Peter "the first bishop of Rome". Perhaps I'm mistaken, and the Church does not teach it. In that case it is, as you say, a matter of history, not faith, and there is no problem with Piledhighandeep adding information from non-Catholic and secular sources about it – in addition to what is in Catholic sources. Esoglou (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

This information is, it seems, not known by many of the readers of this page. I do not see how censoring the position of a large number of historians on this point (by not citing them) serves any purpose, except perpetuating this doctrinally inspired popular misconception. Piledhighandeep (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Then don't censor the position of a large number of historians. Once again, that some historian are Catholic is NOT a valid reason for excluding them from consideration as a source.Farsight001 (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Arbitrary break #3

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break #4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My understanding is that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and the office is passed down. Therefore whoever holds the office is his successor. Sort of like how

Queen Elizabeth I. From that view I don't see any logical issues. Luthien22 (talk

) 21:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II is the successor of Queen Elizabeth I. Was Elizabeth I therefore Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? More clearly, since Hollande is the successor of Louis XIV, was Louis XIV therefore President of France? Since Pope Francis is the successor of Peter, was Peter therefore Bishop of Rome?

Is Hollande King of France, as was his predecessor Louis XIV? Is Pope Francis the chief apostle, as was his predecessor Peter? Esoglou (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Succession to

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

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

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

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

Hollande is successor to Louis XIV because he holds a position previously held by Louis XIV. What is that post? That of being ruler of France. The Catholic Church holds that Pope Francis is successor to Peter because of holding a position previously held by Peter. What is that post? The Catholic Church says it is that of being "the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church" (Lumen gentium, 18).

The Catholic Church also says that the bishops are successors of the apostles, not that the apostles were bishops.

I presume you do not mean to say that "successor of Peter" came into use only as a replacement of "vicar of Peter". For whatever it is worth, this source says 3rd-century Stephen I and 4th-century Damasus I called themselves successors of Peter. I haven't checked whether it is right. Esoglou (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

C) If you want a explicit definition, without changing documents, look at #20, "And just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors..." Who are his successors? In this document, "successor of Peter" is used 11 times. Of those, it is used as a noun 7 times, which don't help to understand what it means. Yet, in addition, it is also used 4 times as a description of the Roman Pontif:

• "St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together;"
• "the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head;"
• "A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them;"
• "The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful."

D) Also, if you want official teaching, let's go to the CCC, under the heading "The episcopal college and its head, the Pope," which states:

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

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

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

When the Church teaches that the Pope is the Successor of Peter, it doesn't means in his being the Bishop of Rome, in his being the Roman Pontiff. He can be Peter's successor not in being Bishop of Rome but in being visible Head of the whole Church. As Hollande is Louis XIV's successor not in being President of France but in being ruler of France.

A) I presume you do not deny that the successor of Peter, at present Pope Francis, is "the Vicar of Christ (in the sense in which Lumen gentium used the title), the visible Head of the whole Church".

B) "their successors, namely the bishops" says that the bishops are the successors of the apostles, distinguishing the bishops from the apostles, not that the bishops are apostles nor that the apostles are bishops. "He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles" is altogether different from saying: "He placed Blessed Peter. Bishop of Rome, over the other bishops."

C) "the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles" – What was that office? Was it the office of being Bishop of Rome? Or was it the office of being the visible Head of the whole Church? The Roman Pontiff is indeed the successor of Peter as visible Head of the whole Church, but the document nowhere says that Peter was Roman Pontiff. i) Peter and the other apostles constitute one college of apostles: Peter too was one of the apostles, part of that body, not extraneous to it. And the Bishop of Rome, who is Peter's successor (as visible Head of the whole Church), and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together as one body: as Peter, visible head of the whole Church, was a member of the college of the apostles, so the Bishop of Rome, visible head of the whole Church, is part of the body of the bishops, not extraneous to it. How does this say Peter was Bishop of Rome? ii)"the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head." So too French laws have no effect unless signed by the President of France, the successor of Louis XIV. "A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them." So too the French National Assembly is not legal unless accepted by the successor of Louis XIV, and it is the prerogative of the President of France to convoke the National Assembly. iv) "The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter (rather than just as Bishop of Rome), is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful."

D) "When Christ instituted the Twelve, he constituted the apostles (including Peter, the visible Head of the whole Church) in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them. Just as by the Lord's institution, St. Peter, visible Head of the whole Church, and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor as the present visible Head of the whole Church, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another." "The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor (current visible Head of the whole Church), is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor (current visible Head of the whole Church), as its head."

None of these statements about the powers of the Bishop of Rome, who is Peter's successor, say that Peter was Bishop of Rome, any more than statements about the powers of the President of France, who is Louis XIV's successor, say that Louis XIV was President of France.

Of course, because of their special office, any apostle was by analogy equivalent to bishop in whatever Christian community he happened to be, for as long as he was there, even if only passing through; that doesn't mean that he was bishop of that town as we now understand being bishop of a particular town. In spite of what you say, I don't think that, outside of Vatican II documents, "Vicar of Christ" is normally accompanied by "successor of Peter". Esoglou (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

First, decide what the question is, then debate that one question. The two might be related, but they are not the same question. This might become a straight out Straw Man's fallacy.

--Coquidragon (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, "Vicar of Christ" as a title for the Pope is assumed much later in the Church's history, much after the primacy of Rome was accepted. So, when you say that the Pope is successor of Peter as Vicar of Christ, well, that is not the language you would find during the first 500 years of the history of the Church. The Pope was Vicar of Peter, was successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome, was successor of Peter as leader of the Church. At that time, Peter was the Vicar of Christ, all bishops were vicars of Christ, even the Holy Spirit was Vicar of Christ. Today, we still define all bishops as vicars of Christ.--Coquidragon (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were saying that the expression "successor of Peter" used of the Bishop of Rome showed that Peter was Bishop of Rome. I replied with the analogy that the expression "successor of Louis XIV", applicable to the President of France, does not show that Louis XIV was President of France. If you were not saying what I thought, I have no observation to make within the present discussion of whether the Church teaches that Peter was Bishop of Rome. (I spoke of the distinction between "apostle" and "bishop" only because of observations by you.) Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Implicitly accepts versus explicitly teaches

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

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

My main aim here was to specifically provide citations for each claim, which were woefully lacking in the original. With proper citations, the reader can better judge the reliability and nature of the information shared. I specifically skirted detailing the "link" between Peter and the Bishops of Rome, which is in need of further resolve. I incorporated the "counterpoint" proposed by Piledhighdeep as a footnote (which may need some adjustment to reflect the phrasing in the body). I also added a potential "historical response" where the historicity may be better elaborated in the future. I included a possible elaboration on Peter's role in the Pentecost, but am not certain if it would be needed. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This text raises a number of questions (even apart from the additional ones raised by the complicating stricken-out additions). The perhaps most basic difficulty is that it presents the college of bishops as a sort of appendage to the papacy, although Church teaching, as in Lumen gentium, presents the pope in the context of the college of bishops, which is the successor group to that of the apostles. In the same way, your text presents Peter in isolation from the group of the apostles, although it is Church teaching that the Church is built "to stand firm on apostolic foundations" (Roman Missal, Preface II of Apostles), not just on Petrine foundations. Esoglou (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I have made some revisions. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Overall it looks good (especially the presence of sources), but a sentence or two explaining what the rest of the apostles did in connection with Peter would be nice. Maybe a revised version of the paragraph that was struck out? Luthien22 (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Luthien22. To facilitate further discussion, I have prepared a public draft here: Talk:Catholic Church/Proposed early history.

@Elizium23:, I am sorry that we must continue this, but the source here ("CCC, 881". Vatican.va.) simply does not specifically state that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. I personally do not dispute him as bishop, but if the Church claimed this, it would specifically claim it. The Catechism is written very carefully; the omission of such an important claim is not accidental. I will not rehash this point here further; I refer you to the discussion started above. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The Church teaches this specifically, and I have provided multiple sources to back it up. Why can't you accept

reliable secondary sources which show the teaching? Elizium23 (talk

) 19:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source for the teaching: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome Elizium23 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a GREEK ORTHODOX source for the teaching: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523 Elizium23 (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This thread is not the appropriate forum. I again refer you to the discussion above, which does not appear to have reach any consensus on the matter, yet. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing here the proposed wording. I am objecting vehemently to the verbal gymnastics in the proposed draft that struggles mightily to avoid presenting the clear and unambiguous teaching of the Church. Elizium23 (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Elizum and I have clashed on this point before. I have already addressed the issue of whether the church teaches Peter to be the first Bishop of Rome. I recuse myself from further discussion or enforcement of the matter. @Elizium23:, I encourage you to work towards consensus on this matter. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

In the account of the Confession of Peter found in the Gospel of Matthew, Christ designates Peter as the "rock" upon which Christ's church will be built.^[1] The Church considers the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, to be the successor to Saint Peter, based upon-extra biblical accounts of Peter's ministry and martyrdom in Rome.^[2] Scholars and Catholic Apologists point to historical evidence indicating Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.^{[3][note 1][4]} Some scholars, though, question whether there was formal leadership in the early Roman Church, and thus whether there is a formal link between Peter and the modern Papacy.^{[5][note 2]}

I wish to expressly invite others to contribute to this public draft. --Zfish118 (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

CCC 737 does not say: At Pentecost, the Apostles are believed to have received the Holy Spirit, preparing them for their mission in leading the church

Boring says the account, the story, in Acts, centred successively on Peter and Paul, moves from Jerusalem to Rome (after much travelling in between); he doesn't say: "Acts further documents a geographic shift of the Christian movement from Jerusalem, the center of Judaism, to Rome, the center of the Gentile world."

CCC 880–881 does not in fact say anything about "based upon-extra biblical accounts of Peter's ministry and martyrdom in Rome".

"Scholars and Catholic Apologists point to historical evidence indicating Peter was the first Bishop of Rome" violates

WP:SAY

.

You cite "Catholic Answers: Was Peter in Rome?", but that says that the position of being the visible Head of the Church on earth could still be attached to the Bishop of Rome, even if Peter never went there: "If Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was established by Christ during his lifetime, long before Peter is said to have reached Rome. There must have been a period of some years in which the papacy did not yet have its connection to Rome." Furthermore, the same article says there is good evidence that Peter was in Rome; but it does not say there is good evidence that he was Bishop of Rome.

There could thus be a link between the function of the papacy and that of Peter even if Peter never went to Rome. There could also be a link even if Peter went to Rome but was not its bishop. In addition, there could be a link even if there was a period perhaps of decades between the death of Peter and the first monoepiscopos of Rome. After all, even today there is an interval between the death of one holder of the office and the election of a replacement. The Church has not actually declared that there was no such interval. Esoglou (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the current draft wording, Esoglou's objections notwithstanding. I have done significant research on these topics and it seems to me that the current draft reflects adequately what the sources attest. If Esoglou has minor wording changes suggested, we could evaluate them on the merits, but I feel a lot of pixels have been spilled already over a minor section of this huge article. Elizium23 (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If they're minor, they should be easy to fix, perhaps starting with the first: the "Failed verification" comment. Either change the text that is not supported by the citation, or find a valid citation for it. Esoglou (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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