Template talk:Pentarchy

Rationale

Template is designed to navigate the interested reader between the five initial church rulers. Constantinople was added after the founding. There were four before that. Alexandria was extinguished after being conquered by the Arabs. Hard to name a specific leader for Antioch after a point in time for the same reason. Jerusalem vanished after the Crusades. Student7 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You did a good job, however, even while the Patriarchate of Alexandria got extinguished in 692, it moved to Cairo in the 10th century and is still called the Patriarchate of "Alexandria" to the present. Are you sure, and how are we supposed to know exactly when? Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, boy! Don't know what to make of all this. My interest is specifically in the preservation of the template and the designation "pentarchy." If you want to try changes and are willing to cope with dissent, if any, be my guest. Student7 (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I don't know where I got my 692 from. A Council confirmed the patriarchy on that date, after the conquest.

Anyway, you might want to check out Patriarch of Antioch before you start. That hasn't been contested, yet there are now five Patriarchs of Antioch, none of whom are in residence there! While I may be wrong about the Alexandrian "end" date, I wonder if we're opening a can of worms here. Student7 (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

May be your right about Alexandria. But still, we should check out Antioch. The sure fire one would probably be Jerusalem—there's no doubt about that. And, Rome still exists till the present as it was, but may be it was earlier when St. Paul arrived? I'm definitely not sure about Antioch, though. ~ Troy (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bishop of Rome

The chuch of Rome could not have had a any earlier than Paul's Epistle to the Romans (and was more likely even after his personal arrival in Acts 28) and the letter is nearly always conster to be written in late 55 AD or later. Paul personally knew Peter, but while greeting 50 people by name in his letter, he does not send greetings to Peter. Peter was not in Rome. The only possible way for their to have been a Bishop of Rome earlier than 55 AD was if it was someone other than Peter. Is that what is ment by this template in claiming it began in 42 AD? --^{Carlaude:Talk} 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Patriarch of Rome

The items in this template should be in parallel form, meaning either "Patriarch" or "Pope" of Rome.

See Patriarch#Roman Catholicism for this quote. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 08:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

“ As part of the Pentarchy, the Bishop of Rome was the only Patriarch in the Western Roman empire. It was roughly coterminous with present territory of the Latin Rite. In the past, Popes have used the title Patriarch of the West or Patriarch of Rome and All the West. ”

• I agree with you that parallel form is nice, but I've never heard any source before talking about Patriarch of Rome. The original title was Bishop of Rome, and the title Pope was first held by Pope Demetrius of Alexandria, after whom the Church of Rome also adopted that title for the Bishop of Rome. In other words, the head of the Church of Rome went from bishop to pope, while the head of the Church of Alexandria went from patriarch to pope. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 19:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You are, as you can see from the quote above, etc, which you have not even addressed. Just because you had not heard something doesn't make it not so.

Rome gained the status of patriarchate as early as any see in the East-- it just used the term "pope" more often, as the term pope derived from Latin, and Latin was only dominate in the West.

In 381 at the First Council of Constantinople Rome was recognized as "first" (of some sort) and Constantinople "second." However, the see of Alexandria, per Patriarch of Alexandria quoted below, was acknowledged only as a patriarchate later. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

“ The office was acknowledged as a Patriarchate by the time of the First Council of Ephesus, and was officially ratified as such by the Council of Chalcedon. ”

I chose to ignore the quote above because there is no source whatsoever that supports your erroneous claim. If anything, the source added a few sentences after that erroneous claim states that the Bishop of Rome was never called Patriarch until the seventh century!!! I quote:

“ Not until 642 can be it ascertained that a pope actually referred to himself by the title ‘patriarch of Rome,’” and “by the end of the seventh century the residence of the bishop of Rome will come to be known as the ‘patriarchium.’” ”

In line with the list of your erroneous claims, the word pope does NOT derive from Latin, but rather from Greek (πάππας) meaning "Father". Since the Church of Rome was a Latin-based church, it is unlikely that the first head of church to carry that title would be a Bishop of Rome. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article Pope, read:

“ The title "Pope" was from the early 3rd century an honorific designation used for any bishop in the West. In the East it was used only for the Bishop of Alexandria. ”

“ Pope Marcellinus (d. 304) is the first Bishop of Rome shown in sources to have had the title "Pope" used of him. From the 6th century, the imperial chancery of Constantinople normally reserved this designation for the Bishop of Rome.[47] From the early 6th century, it began to be confined in the West to the Bishop of Rome, a practice that was firmly in place by the 11th century,[47] when Pope Gregory VII declared it reserved for the Bishop of Rome. ”

As for the term "Pope" itself, it was certainly assumed by the Patriarch of Alexandria long before it was assumed by the Pope of Rome. Here is a quote from the book Get to Know Popes of East & West:

“ Papa has been the specific designation for the Archbishop of Alexandria, Patriarch of Egypt, and the See of Saint Mark, whose ecclessiastic title is, Papa Abba, the Abba stands for the devotion of all monastics, from Pentapolis in the West to Constantinople in the East, to his guidance. Abba is the most powerful designation, that for all Monks in the East to volanterily follow his spiritual authority, it should be assumed he was a bearer of Christ. Historically, this office has held the title of Papa, Father in Coptic, since Papa Heracleus, 13th Alexandrine Patriarch (232-249 AD) was first to associate with the title three centuries before it was assumed by John I, the Roman Bishop (523- 526), who ratified the Alexandrian computation of the date of Easter. Bestowing the title on Rome's Pontiff did not strip it from Alexandria's, and the Roman Catholic Church recognizes this ecclesiastical fact. ”

The first record of this term in history is assigned to Pope Heraclas of Alexandria in a letter written by the bishop of Rome, Dionysius, to Philemon:

“ τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον. ”

Which translates into:

“ I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed pope, Heraclas. ”

--λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 17:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

For purposes of this template, we have to use "Patriarch" to identify all participants, otherwise "Pentarchy" makes little sense. See Pope#Patriarch_of_the_West for details. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Patriarchs of Jerusalem

Unlike Antioch which article has always had the five claimants in it, the Patriarchs of Jerusalem have apparently always have had separate articles. The old template used to point to the dab pages Patriarch of Jerusalem. The new one selects the Greek Orthodox Patriarch and rightly (if you are Greek Orthodox) or wrongly (if you are not), points to him alone. How did this come about? I don't see this in the intent of the edits and reverts. Student7 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This doesn't have anything to do with whether you are Greek Orthodox or not. The concept of the Pentarchy was developed during the Roman Empire, and at that time there was one and only one Patriarchate of Jerusalem, namely the one that today is considered Greek Orthodox. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's take the Roman view for example. I think the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Pope would claim that there was one Patriarchate of Jerusalem during the Roman Empire (as you say), but that it fell away from the "true Church" in the 11th century, and what is now called the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem was set up to fill the vaccant Patriarchate. This is not my view, but Wikipedia is supposed to have a NPOV. tahc ^chat 14:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church probably did take that view during the 12th and 13th centuries, but I rather doubt that is the official Church position today. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge and improvement

@Tahc: What is your objection about the update? Chicbyaccident (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I appears to just move all the elements from the more complicated Template:The pentarchy to this one. That would not really be a merge. But even if it were a merge there should be a reason to do it, a discussion to do it, and consensus to do it.

I also object because it is more complicated in a makes it all less clear, and I object because it imposes a non-neutral POV elements with an unnecessarly heiarchical-format. tahc ^chat 02:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't go about discussing before every edit you do on seemingly idle pages. It's all up to WP:BOLD as usual. Anyway, now that you've objected, could you please be more specific about what information you want changed or deleted in the proposed update?

You need to discuss changes every time if your edit is replacing a whole template with a different but related one.

You need discuss every edit that is objected too, after reverted-- do not keeping making these same edits.

Now that I've objected, it is up to you discuss specific information you want changed or added? --before doing it. tahc ^chat 07:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course we should discuss the contents since you objected. However, I did not make the same edit. I wikified the original contents. If you wish to introduce a new template design, you'll have to discuss that on a more general scale. The current version you're arguing for isn't wikified. Please wikify it.

As for the updates and additions to these contents, we may deal with it later. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The contents are already wikified; every single word (except the five "of"s) have wikilinks. tahc ^chat 14:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but I meant as a regular Wikipedia template. Do you understand? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You mean to make it the full width of the page? I don't see any benifit to that. There is no reason for all Wikipedia templates to be the same, just for the sake of all being the same. tahc ^chat 17:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the information becomes easier to handle for both readers and editors; presented in a coherent way. What's more, you get the links to editing the template, which are not present in your solution for this unique template. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Your form of the full-width template would create a lot of unused or unneeded space.

2. The full-width template would unnecessarly create a heiarchical-format that would over-emphasize whichever episcopal see was placed first.

3. I have now added the "mini navbar" template to aide editing the template. tahc ^chat 09:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Better. Albeit I still don't understand why this one should have a special style as opposed to other similar templates. That just makes it more complacted to improve. Perhaps that is the reasons, since you state that you don't wish to "over-emphasize" its interrelational content. But what is the argument that this aspect should override its editability and informational accessability in consistance with other templates? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I introduced the identical content in an established Wikpedia template with columns, according to your remarks. I also added a below link to the portal. I don't think that would be considered controversial. As for the formerly rejected template proposal, except columns rather than lists, do you have any other remarks? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Commentary

@Tahc: Please state your objections. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I objected to these additions, because it is a superfluous commentary within what is supposed to be a navigational template. The superfluous commentary does not aid in navigation and distracts from the purpose of the template. tahc ^chat 21:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the purpose of the template to reflect the perspective? Above /and/or footer comments happens all day of the week on ordinary Wikipedia templates. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of infoboxes (one sort of template) is to (consistently) present information and "sometimes to improve navigation...".

The purpose of navigation templates (another sort of template) is to aid in navigation between pages.

Template:Pentarchy is a type of navigation template and it doesn't really matter if other navigation templates are sometimes used used wrongly. This is a case where WP:Other stuff exists is not valid here, because such commentary is not even part of the purpose of navigation templates. tahc ^chat 23:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It has been suggested that this page be merged with Template:Eastern Orthodox Church. As essentially duplicate content.

Oppose Template:Pentarchy is used by and links to pan-denominational articles like the Church of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Alexandria. In contrast, Template:Eastern Orthodox Church links to and is used only on Eastern Orthodox articles like the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria. tahc ^chat 13:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - Such a merge would not be feasible. The reason above is the sound reason why.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Constantinople

I doubt Constantinople is disputed enough to not link it to to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, since WP:Consensus has it that Church of Constantinople redirects there. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Jerusalem

The entries for Jerusalem now link to disambiguation pages. Do we want to mark that as a deliberate decision, by linking through the (disambiguation) redirect, or is one of the articles listed on the dab page more appropriate? Certes (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation page(s) does seem like the best option of the available ones, yes. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, so I'll boldly make that change, but I won't complain if someone changes the link to something more specific later. Certes (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It already links to WP:NPOV destination and ought to remain such, without good arguments for otherwise - i.e. you'll have to convince the entities in question to unite, then write about that unificiation in a few academic books, having journalists report about it, and then apply to change the pipelinks according to these new available sources. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree with these links. This is not WP:NPOV, it is deliberately ignoring history. The Pentarchy is a specific historical concept which, as explained in the linked article, was originally based on a decree of Emperor Justinian in the 6th Century. Was Emperor Justinian thinking about the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem? I kind of doubt it. He certainly wasn't thinking of the Latin Patriarchate or the Melkite Patriarchate either, since those didn't exist until 500 and 1100 years after his death, respectively. The Armenian Patriarchate, also, wasn't founded until about a century after Justinian, and since the Armenian Church is non-Chalcedonian, it was expressly excluded from participation in the Orthodox hierarchy. That leaves only one Patriarchate and one diocese that could possibly be the correct targets of these links. @Chicbyaccident:, you can't change history simply by reciting the word "disputed" over and over; you need to give reasons for your position. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Having now bothered to actually read the articles and a couple of sources, I have to jump ships and agree with Russ: we should resolve both links to the Greek Orthodox option. As for "convincing the entities to unite", they were united at the time, in the sense that only one of them existed, and I think it's pretty clear which current church is the successor. Sorry for being lazy and leaving the hard work to the subject experts! Certes (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You are right but the thing is Emperor Justinian hardly thought of the Greek Orthodox patriarchate which neither existed at the time. Applying it would draw this 6th century "specific historical concept" of out of its chronological context. The context was what we could refer to as the united Great Church. That is the reason why we maintain the disambiguation pages and offer them as WP:NPOV redirects, not because of the 19th century Anglican episcopate. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

But the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate is the only one that historically was part of the "Pentarchy" as it existed under the pre-Schism Church. The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem is a position that didn't exist until after the Schism, and I doubt that any of its incumbents would have considered the Patriarch of Constantinople to be their peer. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

6th century source of "Greek Orthodox" Jerusalem patriarchate, please. Until, we cannot but conclude there are but several claimants to that undivided church lineage - and let the reader draw any subsequent conclusions. Either we maintain a disambigation page or we don't. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

We certainly should maintain the disambiguation pages, because the terms are ambiguous in modern usage. The question is whether we can pick one of the meanings as most relevant in this specific context. Certes (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident started the whole misery again, in fact ignoring the consensus above. It would be very nice when he finally starts reading the article Pentarchy. I consider his changes against consensus vandalism as he introduces mistakes. The Banner talk 18:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Certes, R'n'B about this. The Banner talk 06:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@The Banner: Excuse the inconvenience! The article Pentarchy is correctly referred to. It does indeed particularly emphasise that the Holy See and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople are two established, undisputed occupiers of respective see. I agree thus far. What I and more seemingly have problem with is 1) the priority given for the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and 2) linking to the Oriental Orthodoxy portal. WP:BURDEN would be on you who argue for their inclusion. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Why on me? Just above is the same discussion but with an outcome contrary to your wishes. Why do you not prove why your edit is correct and valid enough to overthrow the standing consensus?

I am still wondering why you did not read the article Pentarchy as it gives you a valid insight about what is meant by the subject Pentarchy. To quote the lead of that article:

“ Pentarchy (from the Greek Πενταρχία, pentarchía, from πέντε pénte, "five", and ἄρχειν archein, "to rule") is a model of Church organization historically championed in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It found its fullest expression in the laws of Emperor Justinian I of the Byzantine Empire. In the model, the Christian church is governed by the heads (patriarchs) of the five major episcopal sees of the Roman Empire: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. ”

It speaks quite clear (and referenced) about the "Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem". So, I like to know your reasoning to ignore that? The Banner talk 18:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

There historically was a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople at certain times, yet you (Chicbyaccident) are content to link to the article about the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in this template. I see no reason why Jerusalem is any different. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem is of a more contentious status due to historical reasons in equivalent with that of Alexandra. The Constantinople claims are not disputed comparingly. Consequently, Jerusale, should be dealt with in the same fashion as Alexandra: as minimally as possible, meaning if there is an opportunity for Wikipedia not to pick a position by means of pipelinking, then that opportunity should be taken. And that choice revolves around, in equivalence with Alexandra, to Patriarch of Jerusalem and to the Church of Jerusalem. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Further develop into Template:Christian patriarchates

As seen in interwiki-linked templates it:Template:Patriarcato, and cs:Šablona:Křesťanské patriarcháty. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you really not understand the meaning of this template. I suggest that you start developing a new template named Template:Christian patriarchates conform the Czech and Italian template and leave this template alone. The Banner talk 17:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, what's the meaning of limiting the template to the precurrent scope, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Because it is something different en specific. Ow, And I have reverted your edits on Wikidata that you did to add to the confusion. The Banner talk 17:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a rather small template. If we would create a template on patriarchates, including all the information presented in this template, don't you think it would make it altogether rather redundant? In other words, I still don't understand your aversion? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Banner's statement.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

In other words, I still don't understand your aversion? Thank you for making clear that you really do not understand that this template is about another subject than what you want to make from it. In plain words: it is something different. The Banner talk 19:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

That you think it is important that it be isolated from the other partiarchates, that I have understood. I just fail to understand why, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that you have no clue where you are talking about. The Banner talk 20:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

So would you mind enlighting why you think it has to be isolated? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure he has already enlightened you, yet you do not seem to understand. Certain articles and templates shouldn't be merged ever because they pertain to a specific organization, rather than, such as in this case, pan-Orthodox Christianity. --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Pentarchy is presented in an all-Eastern Orthodox context here: Template:Eastern Orthodox Church footer. That's valid, in a valid template location. I'm not advocating to change that in that template. You shoud defend an isolated Eastern-Orthodox-contextualised presentation of Pentarchy withing mudding it with other Christian patriarchates there, and I will support you in that endeavour. In that template, nothing else should mix it up. What I am advocating, however, is: 1) to have an equivalent of it:Template:Patriarcato on English Wikipedia, while 2) effectively making Template:Pentarchy redundant, 3) for simplicity, simply augmenting this original Template:Pentarchy in question altogether. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Clear, because you have messed up that template and changed its contents, you want to try the same thing here. You even managed to screw up the Pentarchy part there (penta = five) by naming only four (4) patriarchates. The Banner talk 12:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't come up with that dissonance, it goes back. Feel free to improve. Nagging won't help. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

POV-pushing will not help either... The Banner talk 14:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I have extended the information available there. If you think it can be more neutrally presented, please feel free. For the rest, please see: Template:Patriarchates. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

A consensus hasn't been reached, therefore replacing anything is invalid.TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear TheTexasNationalist99, of course, and that is why I proposed what I perceived as improvements here on the talk page. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

There were a lot of good changes afterwards, but Vanished User messed with the original, simple, dates. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Pentarchy&diff=prev&oldid=299587058. I think those dates should be restored. Continuity would include Roman, Eastern, etc. Student7 (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)