Talk:Protestant opposition to papal supremacy

Subject[edit]

This is downright dishonest, Clement is not considered a Protestant or proto-Protestant l. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And much of this isn’t even distinct Protestant claims could just as well be orthodox. I question the legitimacy of much of this page. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not claiming Clement as a proto-Protestant, but it is a similar article as the one named "eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy", with a different point of view, as Protestants and Eastern Orthodox use different arguments from history, and even when using the same sources they are sometimes used in a different manner, thus a seperate article for Protestant and Orthodox opposition. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Solidarityandfreedom: You were right, the article implied otherwise. When I saw it I said "what is this, the Fathers of the Church are not Protestants" The format used previously was lousy. Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Church Fathers[edit]

@Rafaelosornio: (as per [1]) I think the problem here is that arguments against papal supremacy of Protestants relying on Church Fathers, are shown as being the direct opinion of those CFs. The wording should be changed to "X claims that [Church Father]'s action means that...". Veverve (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafaelosornio: with such edits, you are changing the text so that it has nothing to do with the topic of Protestants opposing papal supremacy. Veverve (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, in all of the below there is not a single saying of a Protestant, we need what the reformers say about it.Rafaelosornio (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James White is a Protestant theologian, your edit on Origen was also faulty, in the context James White himself made an argument against Papal supremacy by using this quote. You tried to delete much texts under "abuse of sources", despite you yourself failing to read the whole thing. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article about Origen, it just mention the quote. It is just a primary source. It never says what you wrote before.Rafaelosornio (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before the quote it was James White saying that this quote is his argument against the point of primacy! Though he does not comment on the quote more than using it as an argument, thus I just cited the quote along with James White's forewords. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AO-ministry is the apologetic website of James White. I too had trouble understanding that at first lol. Veverve (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be called "James White opposition to papal supremacy", right? We need more sources. We need urgently what the reformers said about it. Rafaelosornio (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cited John Calvin though I do not know of a secondary source which explains Calvin's views. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed article[edit]

The article is in dispute, since the article is called "Protestant opposition to papal supremacy" but the entire section talks about the Council of Nicea and the Church Fathers, neither of whom were Protestants. It is completely illogical. This section should be removed or redone. --Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It talks about the arguments Protestants make ABOUT the Church fathers against the arguments of the papacy, in the same manner as the article "Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy" does, I copied the style. I simply wanted to make a protestant version of the article "Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy", using the same exact style of writing. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference is that the writings of the Church Fathers and the first seven ecumenical councils are accepted by the Orthodox Church.Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does accepting 4-6 versus 7 change anything? And groups such as Anglicans put heavy emphasis on the early Church Fathers. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended to claim the Church Fathers as proto-Protestants (my personal belief is that they are unique and do not fit perfectly to modern sects), however it was supposed to be a list of arguments which Protestants have used *from* the Church Fathers against this topic, though I added some Catholic counter arguments (such as on Nicea) to not be just an apologetic article. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is becoming a mess, if it's so controversial just delete it I do not have enough time. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The format you used is terrible because it makes the reader understand something else, anyone would think that all the Fathers of the Church cited are Protestants because the article is called "Protestant opposition to papal supremacy".Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it from the style of the Orthodox article. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the word "protestant writers" I referred to Paul Misner and John Calvin cited in there. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the article is better now, I might have used sloppy vocabulary, but I did not intend to claim the Church Fathers as all Protestants. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafaelosornio: The claim of Herman Bavinck was not that history in total is "filled with unfounded assumptions" but the Catholic view of history, however I still deleted the 6th claim as it might be highly controversial. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]