[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Talk:Primacy of Peter

Latest comment: 9 months ago by MartinPot in topic Church fathers "proving" papacy
Learn more about this page

NT was NOT translated

edit

I edited the followed sentence as it is not supported by fact:

"In the Greek text, the new name given is "Πέτρος" (Petros), and in the second half of the same verse the word translated as "rock" is "πέτρα" (petra). In the language that Jesus spoke, the same word, "כפא" (cepha), was used for both Peter's name and for the rock on which Jesus said he would build his church."

The sentences give the reader the false impression that the Bible was translated from Hebrew. There is no evidence to back up the claim. There is no evidence to support that the Greek NT is translated from Aramaic, Hebrew or any other language. In fact, modern Biblical historians have concluded that Jesus and his apostles (with much supported evidence) spoke fluent Greek. And most Biblical scholars agree that most (if not all) of the NT was written in Greek ---and not a translation. The Septuagint provides clear evidence that Jewish OT scripture was written in Greek because most Jews had forgotten how to read and speak Hebrew. The Septuagint was written 300 years before Christ was even born. During Christ's time, Hebrew scripture had to be translated to Greek or Aramaic for the general Jewish population to read. It is true however, that Jesus also read and spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. Greek Primacy

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm#Chapter_Three


70.122.241.250 (talk)Agios Theseus —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC).Reply


Paul's name was not changed to Saul. His name was Paul Saulous or Paul Saul. Explain more later

Ontological thinker 06:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Moved here. Jesus wasn't Romanian. what does this contribute? 222.127.41.93 08:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Example in Romanian language

edit

In Greek: petros (m) - stone or rock (some people argue it is a large piece of rock) petra (f) — stone or rock (some people argue it is a huge rock like Gibraltar)

In Romanian:

  • rock = roca
  • Peter = Petru/Pietru (depending on the regions, it is the same word, it is only an accent)
  • stone = piatra (f)

The masculine form (petru/pietru (m)) is used rearely (excepting by some peasants at country or in Moldavia). Hovever it is widely used in its derivative words:

  • petre/pietre (f), more than one stone
  • petris/pietris (m), many little stones, like a big sand
  • petricica/pietricica (f), a little single stone
  • petricele/pietricele (f), more than one little stones
  • petroi/pietroi (neuter,m), a bigger single stone.
  • petroaie/pietroaie (neuter,f), more than one bigger stones
  • inpetri/inpietri (m), to turn into a stone

If we follow piatra, more than one stone should be piatre: this word does not exist, which means at the beginning piatra had no plural form. More than one stone we say petre/pietre.

Usually piatra (f) means either stone in general, or the material a stone is made of. The second meaning is a stone, because pietru/petru is not widely used any more to designate a stone.

You can see the first meaning/the second meaning like this: steel/object made of steel, or sand/a particle of sand.

For example,

  • "Este numa piatra aici!" means "there are only stones here!" with the first meaning of piatra.
  • "Casa de piatra" means "House made of the material stone" like any modern house, not "House made of stones" in any way.

You can see piatra is only one in these widely used expressions, while in English we translate my more than one usually...

If in Greek there was the same signification, than we should translate: "And I tell you that you are a stone, and on the material this stone is made of I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it"

article name

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

My impression is that "Primacy of Simon Peter" is not a particularly common phrase outside Wikipedia. Some quick looking at Google Books and Google Scholar to see what outside authors use turns up:

  • Primacy of Peter: 760 books, 512 articles
  • Primacy of St. Peter: 663 books, 185 articles
  • Petrine Primacy: 611 books, 150 articles
  • Primacy of Simon Peter: 17 books, 2 articles

I don't have a huge preference between the first three, but they're clearly all much more usual terms, so I'd propose moving to one of them. --Delirium (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reviving this

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply


Primacy of Simon Peter → Primacy of Peter – I'm reviving this with a move request. There's no good reason to have the "Simon". No one says it, and as Delirium pointed out it's not in common use in scholarly sources either; "Primacy of (St.) Peter" is by far the most common, and according to WP:HONORIFICS, the "St." shouldn't be included since in context of even the phrase "Primacy of Peter" alone it's absolutely clear and obvious it's talking about Saint Peter the Apostle. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • Comment speaking as an agnostic 'cultural christian', I have to say I find the proposed title vague. I'm not sure if it is a film, a book, a ???? or, last thought, a theological 'issue'. I know 'St.' is often thought of as an honorific (rather than an identifier) on WP, but that, or 'the Apostle' would be helpful to establish context. Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Primacy of Peter, very weakly support Primacy of Peter the apostle as an alternative are fine. Prefer the former for WP:CONCISE reasons. I'm not even a cultural Christian except by a faint level of memetic osmosis. I've never heard the phrase "Simon Peter" before, and would have assumed it referred to a TV screen writer or something. "Peter" by itself clearly refers to the biblical figure. I don't really buy the "is this a film, a book, a ????" argument. Lots of films are books are named after biblical things, and the biblical thing remains the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so that applies here, and thus tacking on "the Apostle" is unnecessary disambiguation. That said, I see we have Mary (mother of Jesus) (up for renaming to do away with the parentheses), so at least some editors seem to think we should disambiguate obvious biblical names. I disagree, but won't resist much if that's the consensus. Regardless, the current title is faulty as it fails WP:CONCISE and (except for a bible student) WP:RECOGNIZABLE. PS: the main article on the figure should definitely not be at Saint Peter the Apostle, for multiple reasons identified in my comment and the nomination here; Peter (apostle) will do. In neither case is it necessary for "apostle" to be capitalized, per WP:ISMCAPS. These were not job titles these people had, they're appellations tacked on later, and the term's use as an appellation is virtually non-existent outside this specific context. Thus, the capitalization serves no disambiguation or clarification purpose, and is just religious promotion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Why is a common, single, first name (Peter, Paul, John, Mary etc.) an obvious reference to religion, esp. to those who lack the cultural background? I agree regarding caps, but still perplexed as to why 'Saint' is seen as NPOV or promotional, but Prince, King, Emperor etc. are not. I am endorsing neither the 'saintliness' nor the 'special status of royalty' by using the terms best known to history. Pincrete (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's not an "obvious reference to religion", it's a clear reference to a historical figure. Peter didn't have a "surname" to put; all we've got are his personal name, which he is well known by (who else would you mean if you referred to some historical "Peter", unless in a specific context? given no context, you would assume we're talking about the first pope) and a choice of various titles, honorifics, and descriptors to identify him. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I thought it was obvious that 'reference to religion', meant reference to a christian (historical) figure. My point is only that when very common names are being employed, something that establishes (christian, historical) context is necessary and yes, I did know he didn't have a surname!. Personally I don't understand why 'Saint' is frowned on here, but 'the apostle' does the same job. If we are already discussing early christianity, of course I know who Matthew, Mark, Luke and John etc. are, if there is no such context (which is the case when an article title is offered in a list), I have no idea what the subject is. Pincrete (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Pincrete Well, for the moment, he's staying at Saint Peter, fortunately. But in this context, the "Primacy of" gives it away that this article is about him and no one else. (Would you disagree?) (And I knew you knew he didn't have a surname, I was just illustrating my mental process of elimination.) Coupled with BoBoMisiu's reason below, I think that's sufficient to make the move. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
I was just reading the St./apostle outcome. The answer to your 'would you disagree?' question is 'Yes', I would. If I don't know who Peter is, my mind doesn't connect with the right topic area. I seem to be one of the few people here to whom Simon Peter immediately rings the right bells, though I acknowledge your and other's arguments on that. I'm going to go ahead and support the move. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More attention given to Protestant views?

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It seems that a lot of evidence is given for the RC point of view, and much less for the Protestant one, with a focus on one rather marginal argument (petros vs. petra). Maybe an expert could give some attention to how non-Catholics read those passages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.10.8 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. The Protestant section is much shorter, much less well-written, and even contains a "and this Protestant agrees with the Catholics" section. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

merger proposal with Petrine doctrine

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have merged Petrine doctrine with this article in recent updates. I realize this gives the article more of a Catholic tilt as per the comment above, but the other article is, more or less 99% CPOV and this article makes an attempt at a more NPOV. This article could be improved with more neutral sources. If you wish to discuss or make suggestions, please be bold. MatthewEHarbowy (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Article merged: See old talk-page here MatthewEHarbowy (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wow. I didn't know the other page existed. Yes, that was a good idea. StAnselm (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Removing John Chrysostom as supporter of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago24 comments3 people in discussion

First, before I say why it should be taken out, I would like to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia: "[On John,]there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm If you disagree with that source, please state why, because coming from a source that supports the Primacy itself it seems it does not even agree with this article. John, by view of ALL of his writings and homilies is made clear not to be any sort of clear supporter of Papal Primacy. It is grasping at straws to call him for it, when even what is quoted in this article does not directly support it but only show that he believed Peter to be a leader of the Apostles. If you also look into John in his other writings and orations, he also claims Paul the Apostle is equal to Peter.75.73.114.111 (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

How many times have you IP hopped, left, come back, and trolled Catholic articles?Farsight001 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Please do not throw out unfounded personal attacks. Try to contribute to the article and state why you wish to keep it to the article. I am removing it once again, as you are not giving any reason to have it in there. Please do not stock my IP75.73.114.111 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
I wish to keep it in the article because it is relevant to the article and because you have no valid reason to remove it other than that you don't like it.Farsight001 (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have a valid reason and it is supported by sources. It is false to directly claim John Chrysostom to be a "Supporter of Papal Primacy". Never is he directly supporting it, the quote listed in the article is blatant bending of truth. Paul the Apostle is also said to be equal to Peter by John Chrysostom so it illogical to claim he supports Papal Primacy. It is like if we listed Pope Gregory I here, citing he saw the Bishopric of Rome as the leader, even though he also said that the title of "Prince of the Apostles" should never be used by any person, whether Pope or Patriarch. If you wish so much to include John, then how about mention that he also saw Paul as equal to Peter as favorable to Jesus, and also mention Chrysostom's actions which indicate he saw the other Bishoprics as equal to Rome. John Chrysostom was not a clear supporter of the Orthodox view, but he was also not a clear supporter of the Catholic view. If anything he should be viewed as neutral, as at times he goes to the side of the Catholics and others to the Orthodox. If you will not talk directly about that which is being edited and contiune to edit war with me, then please make a post at WP:AN/EW75.73.114.111 (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
It is supported by what sources? You certainly didn't provide any. What I see here is a disruptive editor who is blanking a section of the article because he doesn't like what it says. If you think it's bending of the truth, then explain here, on the talk page, how and why you think that and maybe we can come up with a way to revise the paragraph so it is more accurate. Simply removing sourced material without first explaining why you are doing so and gaining the consent of other users is viewed as disruptive and near-vandalism. Continuing to do so against the very strong suggestion of WP:BRD also tells users that you are here to push a perspective instead of genuinely contribute and improve the encyclopedia. So step back, and try following procedure for once instead of just getting pissy when you don't get your way every single time.

Please sign after posting, Farsight, thank you. I did provide sources and you have yet to show why you think it should still be included or why you believe it to be relevant. If you do not have any knowledge of the subject, then you surely must be pushing a POV. You continue to edit-war for no reason whatsoever, without giving a reason to include the content. I feel this is just a personal attack on me, as you likely just stalked my IP. You also claim I am not following procedure, while it is you who is not following it at all. I edited to make the article not only correct but NPOV and you reverted it without giving a valid reason, completely ignoring my reasoning going on just to PERSONALLY ATTACK ME. Because you obviously have not read my first post, I will provide sources once again:

1. John is not a supporter of Papal Primacy, from the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm "It is true that Chrysostom has some strange passages on our Blessed Lady (see Newman, "Certain difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teachings", London, 1876, pp. 130 sqq.), that he seems to ignore private confession to a priest, that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope." (emphasis mine)

2. John's actions not supporting Papal Primacy, FROM A RENOWNED THEOLOGICAL ACADEMIC OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY JOHN NORMAN DAVIDSON KELLY: Kelly, J. N. D., (1995) Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom, (Cornell University Press), p246. "While confined to his palace, John took a step of great importance. At some date between Easter and Pentecost... he wrote for support to the pope, Innocent I, and, in identical terms, to the two other leading patriarchs in the west, Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia...His move in no way implied that he recognized the holy see as the supreme court of appeal in the church...Such an idea, absent from his sermons and other writings, is ruled out by his simultaneous approach to the two other western patriarchs." (emphasis mine)

3. John was often NOT IN COMMUNION WITH ROME, being with "heretics" in the eyes of the Pope: Socrates Scholasticus The Ecclesiastical History Book V.9 John was ordained to the Diaconate by Meletius of Antioch, who, at the time, was not in communion with Rome thus the Pope. John also supported the successor of Meletius, Bishop Flavian I of Antioch who was also not in communion with Rome.

4. Although John gave Peter many titles, he also gave those titles to others, such as Paul the Apostle: Abbé Guettée (1866). The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, (Minos Publishing Co; NY), p156ff. "The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere." Homily 24 On Genesis, John Chrysostom

5. John also put Peter on the same footing as Paul, which does not follow the tenants of the Primacy of Peter. Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London), pp84ff

"Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love....I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it...Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ!...what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church (1 Cor. 15:38 )." - John Chrysostom Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32, Ver. 24

Is this not enough for you to show that the section on John was completely unfounded? I have now provided all the sources. If you still wish to keep the section, then please provide sources which refute these sources. As you have not provided one source or even given input on the subject (beyond personal attacks and saying a general "I find it relevant."), I will continue to revert your inclusion. If you still continue to revert with no reason beyond personal reasons, then I will have to report you for disruption and edit-warring. I still cannot believe you are reading the entire talk page when you say I am doing this without giving a reason (WHICH I DID RIGHT FROM THE START), or saying I am doing this without sources (WHICH I HAVE PROVIDED FROM THE START). Again, if you wish to continue to disrupt WITHOUT PROVIDING REASONS BEYOND ACCUSING ME OF TROLLING OR OF UNSPECIFIC OBJECTIONS SUCH AS "I find it relevant", I will be forced to report you. If you wish to actually discuss the matter, then please start to. So far I have heard only insults and off-topic remarks.75.73.114.111 (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're going to report me? Lol. You have violated the 3RR already and you have again, re-edited the article before the discussion has come to a conclusion. That's two ticks against you and none against me. So go ahead and report me. I guarantee that you will be the one who winds up blocked, though. Look at my talk page. You see all those violation reports on my talk page? All but one of them were from random editors like you, who made false accusations on my page and wound up getting blocked themselves for their own rule violations. So go ahead, I dare you. Now, if you really want to discuss this, then you will, yourself, re-add the cited information that you have removed in violation of policy, and it will STAY THERE, as several policies clearly state, until the issue is resolved. Childishly removing it over and over and over again despite my repeated explanations that it must stay until the issue is resolved tells me that you have no interest in hearing me out, which makes discussion with you pointless. Hence, there is no reason for me to talk until to show me that you are prepared to do so properly and WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE RULES. Re-adding the information is the only way you're going to do that.
Now, I'm not going to go in depth in response to your explanation until you have shown me that you are interested in actually collaborating by doing what I requested above, however, I will point out that using one source to explain another source, as you have done by using the catholic encyclopedia and such to "explain" the meaning of St. John's words is called synthesis, and it is not allowed. So try again.Farsight001 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
This entire time I have been asking you to contribute and you have refused. You do not seem to understand the policy. You are only attempting to wiki-lawyer yet not understanding the policies. You are refusing to contribute, only reverting without saying anything on the content. Let me get this straight because you don't seem to understand: YOU'RE INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY WOULD MEAN THE ENTIRE SECTION WOULD BE REMOVED ANYWAY it is FALSE interpretation by you and I am tired of telling you over and over again to please contribute and all I get back is insults and dodging. I am reporting you for edit-warring and disruption75.73.114.111 (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have not refused. I have contributed. I provided an explanation. You did not like my explanation and simply reverted several times. After I explained that you need to respond to my explanation for my reverts and that you need to wait and leave the content until the dispute is resolved, you decided to finally try to explain, but you still continued to revert, violating WP:3RR and WP:BRD. As I said above, when you show me that you are willing to properly participate in this encyclopedia by following policies and guidelines, I will continue the discussion. Until then, there is no point in doing so because I can't trust you not to simply ignore everything I have to say and keep editing the way you want. I am not ignoring you. I am putting my foot down against your childish crap and trying to convince you to follow procedure for once. If you continue to refuse, I will have no choice to conclude that pov-pushing is your real goal, and I will simply wait a few days and re-add the information myself.
As for your reporting of me for edit-warring and disruption - sticking a warning on my page does nothing. You actually have to go to the administrator's notice board and place a real warning there, but I'm telling you, you really shouldn't do that. It's not going to turn out well for you. Stick around and follow procedure and I guarantee that we can actually come to an agreement.Farsight001 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It said to notify you before the report be submitted. It is now submitted. I am still waiting for you to say why you believe John should still be listed.75.73.114.111 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're vile language and insults to me is not changing anything. I feel it is you who is pov-pushing and stalking. What is your reason, please restate why you feel my sources are incorrect, they are not OR or synthesis. State specifaclly about the article, talk about John. Quit talking about me this is not what it is about. I will not allow you to bully me75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
So...does that mean you have chosen to refuse to comply with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia?Farsight001 (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:CIVIL WP:PERSONAL WP:NEEDSMOARDRAMA WP:NOOB, thank you. 75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Are you going to answer my question, or just quote a bunch of irrelevant guidelines again?Farsight001 (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hm? Please elaborate. Thank you 75.73.114.111 (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
That John Chrysostom taught the un iversal primacy of the See of Peter is well documented. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm Gazzster (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I gave more than ample time to prove you actually wanted to collaborate and you have not done so. Re-adding the information now. Please note that removing it again before we come to an agreement will be seen as intentional pov-pushing and will be reported. I have been more than patient.Farsight001 (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well one sentence is unsourced. Should be removed. Gazzster, please note this article is not about the Primacy of the Pope, for that please see Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.75.73.114.111 (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
The references I provided refer specifically to Simon Peter (Kephas).Gazzster (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Nevertheless this should be added: John Chrysostom also speaks of Paul as equal to Peter.

Denny, E., (1912) Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London), pp84ff

and
Abbé Guettée argues that John gives titles bestowed upon Peter also to Paul.
Abbé Guettée (1866). The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, (Minos Publishing Co; NY), p156ff.
Farsight001, still not sure what you are talking about.75.73.114.111 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Besides, http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm is hardly a reliable source. 75.73.114.111 (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
First, which sentence is unsourced?
Second, that two people share titles is not indicative of equality. I share a title with my father (Mr.), but we are not equals in authority in any way.Farsight001 (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

"His writings also emphasize the mortality of Peter, linking him more closely to the people of the Church." is unsourced. About your argument of titles: That can be said in certain situations, but in this situation the titles are more than just "Mr." Remember this is not just about authority but also honor. The quote in this article has John giving the title of "the mouth of all the apostles". According to Abbe, this title is also given to Paul. And again, "the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church" is also given to Paul according to Abbe, in the form of calling Paul "the teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere" and also as "the foundation of the church" in his other homilies. Anyway, if we accepted your argument that would still put Peter and Paul as equal in honor. Obviously that does not fit in the the Primacy of Simon Peter, as the sources do claim.75.73.114.111 (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The equality of honor with Paul is true, and acknowledged in the traditions of both Western and Easterm churches. But these quotes from Chrysostom are specific to Peter:

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

"Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness." (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])

"The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples." (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])Gazzster (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter that the titles are more than just Mr. The point is that having the same title does not automatically establish equality of authority. We would need the source to say that they are equal of authority. You cannot assert that they are, that is original research. Nor can you combine this source with another that says the sharing of titles denotes equality either, as that would be WP:SYNTHESIS.
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Primacy of Peter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Original research and editorial use of Psalm 62

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There does not appear to be a source that refers to the Psalms in order to provide background for Matthew 16:18. The choice of Psalm 62 is also not sourced; it is editorial. If Psalm 62 is relevant, then any other reference to rocks in the Bible is relevant. The next paragraphs (after both instances where Psalms 62 appears) provide no further discussion on Psalm 62, nor do they provide sources (just one explanatory footnote). I removed the first reference to Psalm 62 as WP:OR. My edit was [reverted]. Please discuss. —KinkyLipids (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC) (cc: Sundayclose (talk · contribs))Reply

@KinkyLipids: Take another look. I self-reverted about 30 minutes ago. Sundayclose (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ KinkyLipids (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Church fathers "proving" papacy

edit
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ignatius quote: "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church." is far from supporting primacy of pope.

Lot of other citations are about Peter being first among apostles, but not proving supremacy of Rome. Peter and Paul were first bishops of Antioch before Rome. MartinPot (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Primacy_of_Peter&oldid=1211946211"