User talk:Sumergocognito

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

Contents

[edit] St Peter as Pope

Yeah, I decided to wade in with both feet. In response to your questions:

if Peter did not occupy the office then who would have claimed to be Pope, St Linus or his immediate successors?

I think the issue you raise here is multifaceted.

  1. Was the title "Pope" used at the time? My feeling is probably not, but there's nothing to say it wasn't. Remember that documentary evidence from the period is extremely spotty. Those few patristic writings we have must represent only the tip of the iceberg for what what produced at the time. Also, even now "pope" not considered a formal title; it's from an affectionate Latin word for father: papa. I could easily see it becoming attached to a particularly beloved leader, and then permanently affixed to the office out of habit.
  2. Was Peter a Pope? That depends on what you mean by "pope".
    1. I think that either Pope or List of popes goes so far as to refer to Peter's "pontificate", which, as I said in Talk:Pope John Paul II is a patent absurdity. "Pontificate" comes from "Pontifex Maximus". Although this is now among the Pope's official titles, at the time it was the title of the high priest of the pagan Roman religion. It wasn't available to the popes themselves until after the reign of Constantine, or possibly Theodosius. (I'm not sure which Pope first started using it.)
    2. OK, so was Peter a pope in the sense of being the bishop of Rome? Our tradition says no. Peter was an Apostle which means his ministry extended over numerous places by definition. A bishop, by contrast, exercises his ministry over a fixed location.
    3. Then, was Peter a Pope in the sense of being the Vicar of Christ on Earth, exercising a universal monarchal jurisdiction over all the other Christian apostles and bishops? Clearly, the answer here is no. Not only do we know from several references in the Pauline Epistles that St. Paul told him off to his face, but in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 Peter neither presided over the council nor pronounced its decision. That honor was left to the local bishop James the Brother of the Lord. (Who, as it happens, was an apostle who was also a bishop, but in this he was nearly sui generis.)
    4. Was Peter then a Pope in the sense of the first point I made, a beloved leader who the Christian Church in Rome came to call "Papa"? This I don't know the answer to, and it's the reason I conceded the possible point. Maybe Peter was called Pope. But that doesn't mean at all that he was the Pope in the medieval and modern sense of the word. On the other hand, it may well have been first applied to Linus, who was at least Pope in the modern sense of Bishop of Rome (but nothing else.) The answer here is that I don't know, and I don't think anyone does. My concession was really nothing more than an unwillingness to argue from ignorance. By the same token, no argument can be made in the other direction either.
Also, you mentioned a temptation to overhaul the part of the Pope article relating to Orthodox objections to the Papacy. I would encourage you to rewrite the section from a strictly Orthodox viewpoint, including the Orthodox view of Apostolic Succession. As for Anglican views, they should be be treated separately.

I've actually done that already, but left the reference to Anglicans in the paragraph. I figured if it was wrong someone else would come along and fix it. What I should have done is to eliminate the reference to Apostolic Succession altogether since it's really not to the point. The Orthodox position is that Peter was not Bishop of Rome, so there's no unique way in which the Bishop of Rome is his successor relative to any other bishop he consecrated. (Or those consecrated by any of the other Apostles for that matter. They all had the same grace.)

I haven't written any major article content yet, but I might try to set out the Protestant objections to the Papacy as I don't care for what's there now. Altogether, some discussion of Matthew 16:18 needs to be had, and besides that, the entire thing seems to be categorized in Catholic theological terms

Well, that's kind of par for the course. It was probably contributed by Catholics and that language comes naturally to them. (You could probably say something analagous about many of the pages on Orthodoxy.) I notice that someone sneaked in a counter-argument in the "Objections" section, which probably should not have been done. Unless they want to hash out the entire back-and-forth argument in the body of the article, that section should be left for objections alone, especially since, as you imply, much of the rest is frank pro-papal propaganda. Besides, the counter-argument is fallacious. If you edit that section you'll see my rather lengthy comment to that effect. I should probably have put it into the talk page, but I didn't feel like getting into that argument just then. Csernica 05:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clementine Hall article

Great edits, thanks for making them. And welcome to Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raphael Rooms

Good article. Clementine Hall should probably be merged with it; what do you think? Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Great idea! Right now Apostolic Palace is an unhelpful stub; if you merge all the information, it would be a useful comprehensive article, and that would get rid of a bunch of tiny articles that can never become much more than stubs anyway. Jayjg (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Popes

Well, good luck! It seems to me there's at least one element among the Catholics who ought to appreciate your edit: the more fervent of the JPII fans. This bumps him one place up the list.

I just looked at the St. Peter article for the first time, out of morbid curiosity since it was linked from the list. Crikey! (And I don't use that term lightly.) It's like a RC propaganda piece. I felt an urge to edit it, but I'm going to have to save it for a day when I'm pissed off at the world or something and need to vent somewhere. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] == RC:POV ==

I can't say I'm too happy with it myself, but the fact of the matter is that when you say "Catholic Church" most people are going to think of the organization ruled from Rome. They've successfully co-opted the name, at least in the west, which has a lot to do with why we call it, for instance, the Orthodox Church. (Technically, it's the church that's Catholic and the faith that's Orthodox, but if we were to call it by its correct name no one would know what we were talking about.) It requires quite a bit of explanation as to why this should even be a matter of controversy to those unfamiliar with the subject.

I have no problem with "Catholic Church" as shorthand in Roman Catholic Church since the full name is given there. It's more problematic in the JPII article, but it must be admitted that 99% of readers will know exactly what is meant by it, and a goodly percentage of them do so without acknowledging at all that it's really catholic in the theological sense, or at least not exclusively so. (I don't know about you, but I'm in the former camp myself.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homeyra

Hi Cogito, thanks for your note. I tidied Homeyra so it's in line with our house style, but I haven't checked any of it against sources, so that would still need to be done. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I called her Homeyra throughout because we don't use first names and I wasn't sure what her correct surname would be (Amir-Afshari or Afshari). If you know, feel free to change it. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent contributions

Recently, you have been creating pages on senators. Unfortunately, you only provided a box, which meets WP:CSD because it only has a template with no actual content. Please expand the articles to have more content so they aren't speedily deleted. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial spam

Thanks for spotting that, Cogito. I've deleted it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthologion

I'm not familiar with it, but on the other hand I'm more familiar with the Slavic prayer books than the Greek. They're not always identical, and are sometimes named differently. (Just etymologically, it seems like a general term for a collection of prayers, or any other disparate items that are related to each other; i.e. an anthology.) User:ASDamick might be a better person to ask. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Sorry

That's perfectly OK. I removed the warning since you're obviously not a vandal. Cheers! --– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 04:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Fagius

Thanks for alerting me to that - will give it a read through when I have time! Hackloon 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mumbai

Hello Sumercognito I still use Bombay, but I'm not sure how widespread Mumbai is. It's certainly gaining currency, and may become the standard eventually if it isn't already. Names do change over time, which is fine, but I'm disinclined to switch just because some official source says I ought to - which is why my office has an excellent view of the Skydome. For the moment, anyhow, it seems to me both Mumbai and Bombay are acceptable english usage, and I'm not sure where to give preference. WilyD 22:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with your point about spelling - but what I think may motivate it is that a lot of languages have an official arbitraitor of the language - so they're simply ignorant of the English experience, and vice versa. I will admit I'm somewhat more inclined to accept name changes on english places/people/things, as they have a little more credibility in English - If London changed its name tommorow, I'd be more likely to go with the change than I would if Paris did the same - I don't know where it comes from. WilyD 00:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JSTOR

As per your question, it seems like the answer is Yes, yes I do. As far as I can tell, my university has a subscription, so I can access it when I'm at work. WilyD 15:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutio Criminalis Carolina translated

I've translated this article from the German (with some slight edits of my own), let me know what you think. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec et al.

I'm not too sure on this point, but perhaps - As I understand it, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, possible Quebec were invited to join the revolution, and the Union afterwards - an offer I believe that technically still stands. My guess is then that they likely were considered American colonies, but I'm really not sure. The sort of after the fact language usage centres always around the 13 colonies because of the outcome, and it's hard to dig through all this. WilyD 14:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newport

See Talk:Newport Evertype 21:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/m/User_talk%7ESumergocognito_6c28.html"