This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
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
@
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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