Talk:Papal primacy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

POV

The editor who marked this article as POV on 5 October did not explain why he did it. Perhaps the marking is justified because of the disproportionate length of the section on "Orthodox Christian (sic) arguments against papal supremacy", more than twice as long as the rest of the article. Is there any other possible reason for marking the article as POV? The article has another section on "Opposition to the doctrine", a mere 3.86% of the whole article but a whole 11.59% of the non-OCAAPS part, and the rest is a historical account of the growth of the Bishop of Rome's exercise of power and the challenges raised against it. There is no section on arguments for the doctrine. —Esoglou (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou: Arguments 'for' are given in the first section, showing 'development' and use of Irenaus, Ignatius, et al. You may have missed it in concentrating on percentages and other segements

Out of curiosity when you quote "Orthodox Christian (sic) arguments against papal supremacy" I can't find that quote, nor whether you've inserted (sic) which would be incorrect or whether that's in the original quote - where ever you found it —Montalban (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that you are unfamiliar with the use of " [sic]" in a quotation. I take it that you do not question that your "Orthodox Christian [sic] arguments against papal supremacy" at this point take up a little more than two thirds of the article. —Esoglou (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Esolgou, people use (sic) in a quote only when there's an error in the quote, such as spelling, and the person quoting that is acknowledging the error. So, for instance if you wrote "Rome is a grate city" and I were to quote you what you said I would write as part of the quote exactly what you wrote thus : "Rome is a grate (sic) city" because I'm quoting you and I add (sic) noting the error in spelling.

I asked you who wrote "Orthodox Christian (sic) arguments..." I don't recall doing so.

I have no idea who you're quoting. Is it me, someone else, who? It's a very simple question —Montalban (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if you have no idea who wrote this, whoever did write it used more than two thirds of the article to present that one POV. This talk section is about that undenied disproportion. It is best not to devote it instead to questions of curiosity . The article, as it stands, is clearly a POV article. —Esoglou (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Two things,

a) this reply of yours has nothing to do with you adding (sic) into a text for as yet no apparent reason. I can only gather you don't know what (sic) is used for.

b) not only was I invited to present an Orthodox view-point, the POV as you call it is one of your selective rules, missing that the first part of the article is arguably one giving the view of the Catholic church - re: the development of primacy based on alleged evidences. It is simply another in a plethora of charges that you have laid without doing so to the whole article, or only to certain editors. —Montalban (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You may have forgotten your ignoring the Oriental Orthodox, but please don't forget that the complaint here is not about the presentation of an Eastern Orthodox view but about devoting more than two thirds of the article to your presentation of it. —Esoglou (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The problem is not the presentation of the Orthodox POV. That absolutely should be presented here. The problem is the extent and nature of the presentation to the point where it takes on the character of a polemic rather than an encyclopedia article. The solution is NOT to expand the so-called "Catholic" section so as to create a competing polemic. Instead, what we need to do is to trim the article to a more readable length. We should remember that Wikipedia is NOT paper and that we have the option of creating a separate article for the long, detailed discussion of the Orthodox POV while retaining just a summary of the key points here in this article. Wikipedia is also NOT a forum or a battleground. It is not the purpose of this or any other article to present a particular POV with the intent of convincing the reader of the rightness of that POV. We should describe the issue and the key points in dispute and then let the reader avail himself of the many external resources that can discuss those points in detail. —Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just noticed that this article is the 599th longest out of the 3,796,370 in the English Wikipedia, with, I think, only three religion-related articles ahead of it. —Esoglou (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And I notice that even after all this much time no attempt (other than trying to divert discussion to another matter) has been made to defend the POV disproportion of the article, with two thirds of it taken up by forum-like polemics. —Esoglou (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Toledo and the filioque - the classic case of selective rule application

A third section so this stands out.

Whilst on this article Esgolou has chose to put multiple calls for ciations on every point on the article about the filioque itself ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque the notion that many popes arguing against the inclusion is apparently okay. —Montalban (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Now the Toledo article is huge! —Montalban (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a section largely if not completely irrelevant to the topic. —Esoglou (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the problem here is symptomatic of a more general problem which is the approach of putting section headings to points which deserve at most one or two sentences. We should shorten the whole article by summarizing the points made in individual sections into sentences in a single section. One of the most egregious examples of this is the approach of giving each of the Ecumenical Councils a separate section when the whole point could be made in a single paragraph. I doubt that each of the ECs even needs a separate sentence each. I suspect that two or three sentences would suffice to characterize all seven wrt to the topic of papal primacy.

With respect to the "Council of Toledo" section which is now more about the Filioque than about that particular council, we should stop beating around the bush and stop making arguments with facts which is original research anyway. We should just come right out and say "Some Orthodox sources argue that the failure of Popes to stop the spread of the Filioque is an indication that, even in the West, the Popes did not (or could not) use primacy to enforce key points of doctrine." Then, we should back up that sentence with a citation to a source. All the details about the Council of Toledo and subsequent councils could go in a note or a reference or not be mentioned at all. This is not to say that those details don't belong in Wikipedia. I think they do; it's just that they belong in the Filioque article, not here.

If there is a secondary source that rebuts the above assertion regarding papal primacy and the Filioque, then we should present it. But we should not concoct our own syllogisms in rebuttal because that also would be original research. —Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. No concocted syllogisms are admissible on either side. —Esoglou (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a section that shows that despite papal protests local councils kept the filioque —Montalban (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

So change the heading to "Council of Aachen"? That was the council whose sanction of use of the Creed with Filioque Pope Leo III refused to confirm, not the council of 220 years earlier that, for all we know, he never even heard of.

In any case, no concocted syllogisms. —Esoglou (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that's only a slight improvement on what is basically a misleading section title. The point of the section is that there was a spreading movement among local bishops (supported by local rulers) to insert the Filioque. To me, it's an open question what the attitude of the popes was during the several hundred years that this was happening. Montalban's text suggests that the popes were actively in opposition and simply frustrated and impotent to stop it. The other possibility is that the popes felt that the insertion was doctrinally acceptable but politically problematic because of the opposition of the East. Based on the text that has been presented by Esoglou, it seems that as an accomodation to the East, the popes did not officially accept or sanction the insertion of the Filioque but neither did they actively oppose it (as Montalban's text suggests). I think the section title should be "Spread of the Filioque throughout the West" —Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Richard. I must add that I think the logical conclusion is that the section has perhaps nothing to do with objections to papal primacy. The Council of Aachen acknowledged Pope Leo III's primacy by asking him to confirm its decision. After his rejection of the request, the continuance of the already established custom of chanting the Creed with Filioque would be a denial of papal primacy only - I admit that this is putting it perhaps too strongly - in the eyes of those who imagine that papal primacy means that, if a Pope says "Jump", every Christian should do so immediately, perhaps without even asking "How high?"! —Esoglou (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Treatment of Council of Toledo in the Filioque article

I have copied over the entire "Council of Toledo" section to that article and renamed it "Spread throughout the Western Church". Please review my edits to that article and adjust it as necessary. —Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I did review and edit your addition to the "Council of Toledo" section of the "Filioque" article, without first looking at the context. I then found that most of what you put in from here) is dealt with in much greater detail further down in the "Filioque" article, where that article considers the much later events of the Council of Aachen, Pope Leo III's refusal to grant its request, and the still later 1014 event. I leave it to you to decide whether to remove it all again.

Does not the arrangement in the other article indicate how misleading it is to confuse, as here, 9th-century events with the 6th-century Council of Toledo? —Esoglou (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

this section...

There's a section with the banner This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2011)

This is in error as the footnotes from #101 onwards attests. What's more it's probably added by one of the two who re-edited that section anyway. —Montalban (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

How high?

I've removed a small section where argument against no one has been made. Someone edited into the article an admitted 'caricature' argument. No one has made the argument it mocks therefore I've removed it.

One person 'imagines' that the argument was made. But what's in his imagination isn't good enough for inclusion in Wiki. —Montalban (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I support the removal of the text, all arguments should be well cited. —MilkStraw532 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What is ill-cited about the statement in the article? Firstly, it is not an argument: it is a well-sourced report of a statement actually made by a critic. The statement in the article is: One highly confrontational critic of a papal statement declared: "I think the best thing to do is ignore it, and it will go away. It's not an authoritative teaching statement ... The problem here is that non-Catholics think when the Pope says 'Jump,' we all say, 'How high?'" The source given for the statement in the article is Patrick J. Reilly, "Teaching Euthanasia" (Catholic Culture). In what way does the source fail to support what the article says? —Esoglou (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

An article about euthenasia by someone making a flippant rebuttal against some other unknown argument has no point being here on Wiki on this particular article whether you imagine that they're arguing it here or not. —Montalban (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is not by any means flippant. If the Jesuit whom it decries was flippant, it shows all the more clearly the attitude that Western Catholics do display with regard to papal directives. Much more dismissive than the Council of Aachen was towards Pope Leo III, on which you set so much store. —Esoglou (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What you could do is present an argument from people and then use this where it actually counter-argues against their position. As it stands the remarks are addressing no argument made here on this article.

There might well be people out there making such judgments about the RCC —Montalban (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You have counted many cases of refusal to accept papal directives as "objections to papal primacy". This is reliably sourced evidence of even Roman Catholics, even Jesuit clergy, ignoring papal directives. Just as apposite as the cases you have so abundantly inserted into the article. —Esoglou (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No. It's a straw-man argument. No one has made the statement, or even the inference that Papal Suprmemacy is a case of the Pope demanding people jump (even in a figurative sense). It's a straw-man because the nature of a straw-man is to address an argument not made. It's not good enough to say "People are opposing the Papacy" because the way those arguments are constructed are still not addressed by your 'well-sourced retort. —Montalban (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I should go over this in a little more detail because it's a concept I don't think you've managed to grasp – given you've falsely accused me of this in the past.

There are arguments against the papacy.

There are some arguments against the papacy presented in the article.

Your quote addresses an argument against the papacy.

Your quote doesn't address ANY of the arguments presented in the article.

The fact that arguments have been made in the article and this is a rebuttal of arguments against the papacy does not make it valid because it's not addressing any of the arguments made in the article.

As I noted if you presented an argument in the article that it addresses, then you'd have a valid reason for keeping it in the article. You've not done this. Therefore as it stands it's countering an argument not made in the article. Therefore it's a straw-man argument. It's addressing an argument not shown.

That is the nature of straw-man argument, to build up an argument against a position not made and address that. —Montalban (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Father Paris explicitly claimed he was not obliged to obey the papal directive. An explicit as well as a clear case of disobedience. In what way is this factual instance of disobedience to a papal directive different from the other disobediences that you reckon as "objections" to papal primacy? —Esoglou (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this another way...Who made the statement that all Papal directives have to be obeyed? —Montalban (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

His opinion is not also necessarily that of all Catholics. —Montalban (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the quotation of the Jesuit cited by Esoglou does not specifically mention papal primacy but neither do any of the other quotes in the "Third Council of Toledo" section. You have yet to respond to my request to show that this council is used by a reliable source to argue against papal primacy. Esoglou's quote from the Jesuit priest Paris is not applicable because there is no indication that he is not discussing papal primacy. Neither for that matter is the preceding sentence about SSPX. So what we have is an article that is made overly long by the use of ad hoc Original Research arguments discussing papal authority rather than papal primacy. If you're going to start deleting text, then let us agree to remove all text that is not supported by a secondaray source that specifically discusses papal primacy. —Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The justification for mentioning Jesuit Professor John J. Paris was/is not directly the quotation of his words, but his action of blatantly disobeying a papal directive as not binding. However, on condition that Montalban also accepts it, I accept Richard's dictum that John J. Paris's action cannot be admitted to the Wikipedia article on the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff "because there is no indication that he (John J. Paris) is discussing papal primacy". (I presume that the word "not" was included in Richard's statement by an oversight.) Not only do I accept it on the stated condition, but I will apply it also to the other passages that Richard mentions. The Western Filioque local councils certainly were not questioning papal primacy. While it could evidently be maintained that John J. Paris did implicitly speak of the primacy of the Pope, it is quite clear that the Toledo councils and the Hatfield one made no reference whatever to it either explicitly or implicitly, and the Council of Aachen even acknowledged the Pope's primacy implicitly by asking him to confirm its decrees after its conclusion. So the mention of these councils is even more a strawman argument than is the mention of John J. Paris's disregarding papal directives. If mention of the councils is restored, so must mention of John J. Paris.

Esoglou (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard there's just so many things wrong with your statement.

Firslty, I had cited a secondary reference in Whelton (I've now added another from Clark Carlton) which leads me to my next...

Secondly, Toledo's been totally removed by you guys re-editing it anyway - this seems to be a ploy - re-edit material make it too long or irrelevant and then remove it yourself on the basis that its too long or no longer relevant. And here too is something else done - the removal of the reference by Whelton that you now call for - earlier you acknowledged that it was there, and you said that even though it was a quote you'd trust that it said what I claimed it was - now you've completely reversed that position to asking for something that you've already acknowledged seeing! (it's that good cop/bad cop routine gone somewhat awry!)

Thirdly, you've already allowed non cited material here in the opening sections anyway - your application of rules ONLY emerged after I added an Orthodox section

Fourthly, Esolgou's quote is a straw-man NOT an issue about secondary sources, so you're comparing the wrong things anyway

Fifthly, you're now trying an argument of tu quoque which is a logical fallacy. —Montalban (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

John J. Paris's disregard for a papal directive and his declaration that no obedience was owed to it (which is what I cite) had much more to do with papal primacy than the action of the Councils of Toledo and Hatfield that made not the slightest reference to papal directives. There is no evidence that the Toledo and Hatfield councils were related to papal authority, but Paris's action was quite explicitly related with it. —Esoglou (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Addressing an argument not made is a straw-man.

Removing citations and then asking for citations is pointless

Removing citations others have agreed to, but then demanding full quotes is equally pointless —Montalban (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a section below for discussion precisely on the mention of John J. Paris's disregard of papal authority, a fact, not an argument. —Esoglou (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

And again?

I see in this article Esoglou and Pseudo-Richard are yet again edit warring with an Orthodox editor. As a neutral third party who keeps on being called on to comment, I think it's about time I reported the three of you for consistent edit warring. Look at the size of this article, and what you've done to it. It reads like a theological dispute, not an encyclopedic article. —Taiwan boi (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you read #POV above? —Esoglou (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There's been massive re-editing.

I would think that this should go to some kind of third-party arbitration —Montalban (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Much of the article was being re-written following many compromises by myself, and extensive negotiations between Psuedo-Richard and myself. We had agreed, pretty much to a formula. I would add in secondary references and remove un-supported material (I did this re: Athanasius), and to reduce the size of the article, (I did this with reduction of the conclusion). Pseudo-Richard pushed quotes into references, further reducing the size and enhancing the readability.

However onto this were arbitrary re-writes, requests for citations, etc. from a third party.

There had been progress. It seems to me that Pseudo-Richard has reversed course on the compromises and is agreeing with the butchery of the article and changes made by that third party. —Montalban (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Also a number of the problems are invented. I had re: Council of Toledo a reference from Whelton. Pseudo-Richard accepted this. A third party re-edited the material and the reference was lost. Recently Pseudo-Richard asked for the reference

The problem was thus 'invented' because it was there, but removed by his colleague. Furthermore, having previously accepted the reference either he or his colleague then asked for full quotes. This is simply that I met an objection and then a new one is invented.

The Council of Toledo article was butchered, then made huge (despite apparently calling me to reduce articles). Irrelevancies were introduced by them and this viola they say that it's now irrelevant – and they removed it. These inventions are causing the article to lose cohesion and are totally against the negotiated process that Pseudo-Richard and I had previously been following. —Montalban (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is it?

Is there support for a resumption of co-operation? —Montalban (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Artificial problems

Aside from removing (through edits) material that others then demand to see, one artificial problem has emerged more recently.

The section Other disregard of papal directives by Westerners has given one editor cause to ask if we really are talking about papal supremacy or papal authority.

It has nothing to do with supremacy and therefore shouldn't be there. It's no point suggesting that myself and Esolgou are talking past each other on this because I didn't add the section.

I didn't then give it a straw-man argument in order to trivialise the whole issue of westerners disregarding papal supremacy.

The section has nothing to do with the article. Adding sections to the article and then saying in effect "Oh, now we don't really have a common understanding of supremacy" is to create a problem in order to address it

—Montalban (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"This despite the fact that popes had argued against adding to the Creed"

No source has been given for the claim that popes had argued (before 589) against adding to the Creed. If the statement remains unsourced, it may be removed.

—Esoglou (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What does it matter that the popes argued against this before 589?

I suppose it's all academic now anyway, after that section's been removed from the article. —Montalban (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversial move presented as "uncontroversial"

User:Jojalozzo has been on a campaign of changing "the Pope" to "the pope" in spite of common usage and the rules stated in works such as this. He also requested that this article be moved from "Primacy of the Roman Pontiff" to "Primacy of the Roman pontiff", claiming that his request was "uncontroversial". I think acceptance of his claim was over-hasty. Not every Roman pontiff had primacy. In ancient Rome the Pontifex Maximus had primacy over the other Roman pontiffs. Only "The Roman Pontiff", capitalized, is unambiguous. The move should certainly be reverted, at least until discussion of Jajalozzo's decidedly controversial proposal. —Esoglou (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the MOS, "pope" is only capitalized when it is followed by a person's name or when referring to a particular high-ranking individual rather than the generic holder of an office. I tried to down-case only those instances where the generic office holder was intended. Likewise "pontiff", "papacy" etc. are also common nouns since they don't refer to a specific person. I will go with BRD process here. —Jojalozzo 19:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jojalozzo. I have only wished that the question be discussed and will of course accept without difficulty whatever consensus emerges. As for WP:BRD, I do think you were bold. However, no reverting of the change of title has taken place (although I think it should have been reverted until after discussion) and I have not reverted your changes of capitalization of "Pope"/"pope" (it is enough that question be discussed on another page, without raising it here also). As for discussion, that is just what I would like to see. —Esoglou (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

True, reverting isn't so simple for page moves that require an admin but I did check that there had been no previous discussion or controversy around this style issue. So let's work this out. —Jojalozzo 20:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The term "primacy of the Roman pontiff" refers to religious doctrine (see WP:DOCTCAPS). The noun "pontiff" in this context refers to a generic officeholder (see WP:JOBTITLES). The MOS does not capitalize "pontiff" in either of these instances. —Jojalozzo 20:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I still think "Roman pontiff" is too ambiguous. Under Julius Caesar, there were 16 of them at a time. But I don't think there is any such ambiguity about "Roman Pontiff".

Perhaps you can reply to my already noted expression of surprise with regard to a generic officeholder under the United States constitution/Constitution: I am quite surprised at the suggestion that, when speaking of the officeholder, we should write of the relations between the "president" and the "Congress" - or should it be "congress"? —Esoglou (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not up on this history. Under Caesar were there 15 "Roman pontiffs" and a single "Roman Pontiff"? Where can I learn more about this? And where does this issue of many pontiffs play into this article?

I thought we were having the "Pope/pope" discussion on the pope talk page. In any case "president" is down-cased like "congresswoman" unless it occurs before a person's name. "Congress" is down-cased when it refers to a generic congress (common noun) and up-cased when it refers to a specific government entity like "Congress of Mauritania" (proper name). —Jojalozzo 04:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Caesar increased the number of pontiffs in Rome. He did not institute a single capitalized "Roman Pontiff" (capitalization had not yet been invented), although there was a single "Pontifex Maximus" (a term we usually capitalize, don't we?). In the language in which we are writing and in whose modern form capitalization does exist, "the Roman pontiff" is ambiguous (ancient or modern?), "the Roman Pontiff" is unambiguous.

My remark about the customary capitalization of "the President", when writing, for instance, of the constitutional relationship between the President and Congress was no more than a response to your remark about the generic officeholder, as opposed to the particular individual holding the office. I agree that concrete discussion of the question is best left to the other Talk page. —Esoglou (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then I don't understand why having 16 pontiffs in Caesar's time has bearing on this issue.

Please explain what is ambiguous about "Roman pontiff"? Who else besides the Bishop of Rome (capitalized because it's the "correct formal name of an office") could the article be referring to?

It's likely we are misapplying the guidelines if and when we capitalize "Pontifex Maximus". That is, if anyone is applying the guidelines rather than just writing the way they are used to in non-Wikipedia context. A lot depends on how we are using the term. If it's an honorific like "His Majesty" then we would capitalize it. If it's referring to the holder of the office of high priest we shouldn't capitalize it. Capitalization of one term is usually a poor basis for making decisions about other terms.

It's my understanding that titles like "pope" should be capitalized only when we're using them to refer to a specific individual (either before their name or, for very high ranking people, in a context where it's clear which specific, very high ranking person we mean) and I think "pontiff" is pretty much the same. In this article, "Roman pontiff" is not referring to a specific pontiff but any person in the role of Roman pontiff. —Jojalozzo 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The 16 pontiffs (lower case) of, for instance, the year 46 BC were Roman pontiffs (lower case), surely? In that context, what is meant by speaking of the primacy of "the Roman pontiff" (lower case)? I suppose primacy could be attributed to the Pontifex Maximus, but he was only one of the sixteen Roman pontiffs (lower case) of the time. He was not the Roman pontiff (lower case). —Esoglou (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like there was no "Roman Pontiff" then so either this article is not talking about any of them or the title isn't accurate. The article currently says it's about the "Primacy of the Bishop of Rome". Why not use that title? We capitalize Bishop of Rome because it's the correct official name of the office. —Jojalozzo 18:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both your comment and your proposal. —Esoglou (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'll post a talk page request/discussion for that move... —Jojalozzo 20:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just being picky here... I'm probably not going to oppose the proposed move to Primacy of the Bishop of Rome but Jojalozzo wrote some things that are not quite accurate perhaps because he was writing quickly and perhaps a bit sloppily. In pre-Christian times, there was no single "Roman pontiff", there were, using the example of 46 BCE per Esoglou, as many as 16 Roman pontiffs of whom the Pontifex Maximus was supreme. Augustus Caesar assumed the title of Pontifex Maximus and it became a title of the emperor until the time of Theodosius I when it fell into disuse. In 382, Gratian formally renounced the title and it is said by some that Pope Damasus I was the first pope to assume the title. So there was (in pre-Christian times) no single "Roman pontiff". However, there is now a "Roman Pontiff" and, as James Coriden asserts, the preferred title for the Pope is "Roman Pontiff" An Introduction to Canon Law by James Coriden. The pope is both "the Supreme Pontiff" (Pontifex Maximus) and "the Roman Pontiff".

This article would be OK to remain at its current title if "pontiff" were capitalized but using "Bishop of Rome" is an acceptable compromise so I won't object. —Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

May I be picky too? Coriden doesn't say that "the Roman Pontiff" is the preferred title for the Pope. He says it's the Code of Canon Law's preferred title, the only(?) other title used in the Code being "the Supreme Pontiff". Neither of these is the most common title outside the Code. They are uncommon in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, used, I think, only in quotations (list of both expressions together), less common than "Pope" (list), or "successor of Peter" (list). "Pontifex Maximus" (the Greatest Pontiff) is not really used anywhere as a title except on buildings, coins and the like, and the idea that it was used by Damasus I seems to be unfounded.

Perhaps we can all agree on "Bishop of Rome", while keeping our personal preferences, even regarding use of upper or lower case. —Esoglou (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I was scratching my head over what Coriden wrote and your explanation makes sense. —Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pontifex Maximus

So... I was curious about the term "Pontifex Maximus" and decided to ask a fellow Wikipedian who is Orthodox about it. You might find the discussion here interesting. —Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to that publication, I think the Wikipedia article on Pontifex Maximus is better on Christian use of the title. —Esoglou (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5