Talk:Apostolic see

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Would it not be helpful to include all of the sees legendarily founded by apostles? I'm particularly thinking of the community of Saint Thomas Christians said to have been founded by Thomas the Twin in 64 CE. Presumably, similar legends are attributed to most of the other apostles in various places as well? QuartierLatin1968 21:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Twelve apostles dab

Regarding the latest edit * Jerusalem, in present-day Israel, or Palestine, from the twelve apostles themselves as the original Church and also a successor of the Apostle Saint James - I have changed the apostles to apostles to point to Twelve_Apostles article. --Biblbroks 's talk 18:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance to Rome or Constantinople

What does this phrase: "The sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem are traditionally divided in their allegiance to either Rome or Constantinople, but the modern movement of ecumenism seeks to heal these church-dividing wounds." mean? I wasn't aware of those three sees owing allegiance to Rome. Is that a reference to the Eastern Catholic Churches? If this is the case, shouldn't we also make reference to the Oriental Orthodox, who claim these three sees as well (the Copts with Alexandria, the Syrians with Antioch, and the Armenians with Jerusalem)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusveritasest (talk • contribs) 04:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If ADM wants it back in, he should clarify and source it. Lima (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other sees

Also, it seems that there is a certain shortage of references to sees which claim Apostolic origin. This article is seemingly limited to the Pentarchy, yet there are many more sees to be listed beyond these five. Should not this article be broadened as such? Deusveritasest (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some are mentioned. You may add more. I have endeavoured to draw more attention to non-patriarchal ones by putting those classified as the Pentarchy in a separate paragraph and slightly simplifying their description. Lima (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Thomas created a church in Kerala, India. Would this qualify as an apostolic see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.57.199 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrae Sanctae"

What is the point of referring to the Holy Land in Latin in this article? Deusveritasest (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified and, moreover, ungrammatical. Lima (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move this to Apostolic see?

I believe that, as with episcopal sees, one doesn't use initial caps when writing about apostolic sees, unless one is referring to the Apostolic See, that is, the Holy See. So can we move this to Apostolic see, which currently redirects here? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Lima (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds sensible. Q·L·1968 ☿ 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"POV pusher"

Notpietru, please explain why you classify as POV pushing an indication that calling Rome the Apostolic See (an expression that suggests no other see can be given that name) is an RCC usage. Do you mean that everyone, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants included, follow the same usage?

Your reversal to "According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, 'The Apostolic See' is used ..." (emphasis added) has made me wonder whether it is logical to quote a 1907 publication for what is used, rather than for what was used over a century ago. Esoglou (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an updated ref would be nice, but that's still the stance of the RCC today, that they are the only valid "THE APOSTOLIC SEE". Naturally the other "Apostolic Sees" disagree with that claim. And the "Non-Apostolic Sees" couldn't care less. 75.15.199.160 (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This unsigned editor thus agrees that the usage under discussion is (today too) a specifically RCC usage. Mentioning it was not POV pushing. Suppressing the mention perhaps was. Esoglou (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware that using socks runs counter to Wiki policy? Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. It may help to read the English a little more carefully: the claim is qualified in light of an Encyclopedic entry which you are trying to delete. The point of these articles is the faithful collation of standard scholarly material, or irregular work carefully qualified. Problems with this method are problems with Wikipedia, and should an editor wish to dispute them, the Apostolic see talk page is hardly a suitable place to do so. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notpietru, please be civil. After calling me a "POV pusher", are you now accusing me of using a sock puppet? I will be delighted if you get someone to check whether the still anonymous new editor is even from the same country I am from! But for the rule about assuming good faith, I might wonder about your motives in reversing all the changes that editor made in this article.

I don't get what you mean by recommending to read the English more carefully. What encyclopedic entry did I try to delete? I kept the reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia article: just look at footnote 14 of the article as revised by me, the form that you reverted on the grounds not merely of calling it "POV pushing", but more offensively, by calling me a "POV pusher"! What you deleted was the statement that it is RCC usage to call the see of Rome simply "the Apostolic See". Undeniably it is RCC usage, as the Catholic Encyclopedia citation shows. Do you want some further citations of that RCC usage in papal documents and the like? There are dozens, indeed hundreds of them, more likely thousands of them. I refrained from inserting a statement that this usage is not EOC usage, because I wanted to be less controversial. (You are now forcing me to become controversial.) It is not difficult to produce citations that show that in Eastern usage the see of Rome (which is, of course, called the Apostolic See of Rome, as the see of Antioch is called the Apostolic See of Antioch) is not called simply the Apostolic See. Take Bishop Kallistos Ware's book on the Orthodox Church. Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent current edit. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Can someone please upload this map? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TheApostolicSees.png

It fits this page perfectly. Thanks. --Daniel the duck (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for additional citations

A request for additional citations has been placed in the article. It would be helpful to have an indication of the items in it that are felt to require additional citations. Esoglou (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few additional citations and have removed the tag until the editor who placed indicates what she or he wants. Esoglou (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"apostolic see" vs "apostolic origins"

"The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church claims founding by Saint Philip the Evangelist." Yes, but the Church does not claim that St Philip founded a see. According to the article on this Church, Ethiopia didn't have a bishop until a few centuries later. Likewise the article on the St Thomas Christian Churches says " "Saint Thomas Christians remained as an independent group, and they got their bishops from Church of the East until the 16th century." --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apostolic see. 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) 13:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the apostolic see of Malankara

The Churches do not just claim it is tradition and strong belief. The Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church is to be addressed with Malankara preceeding Marthoma as the other Churches. Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section is headed: "Sees <viewed as founded by apostles or their close associates" and the entry immediately before is "Russian Orthodox Church claims a connection with Saint Andrew, who is said to have visited the area where the city of Kiev later arose.[28]

The title of the Wikipedia article is Mar Thoma Syrian Church. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goa as apostolic see

An editor has insisted that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Goa and Daman, which was founded on 31 January 1533 is an apostolic see or church because of an alleged visit by the Apostle Barnabas (of which there is "no local tradition") to what has been interpreted as "the Bombay region on the Konkan coast". This seems highly dubious. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many researches have been done to prove that Bartholomew preached in india. In no way my claims are false even the Archbishop of bombay is considered to be tge apostolic successor of St. Bartholomew Even the roman catholic church of pakistan claims Bartholomew to be their patron saint. Where eraly church fathers like Jerome,clement and origen beleived Bartholomew preached in india. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/tracing-st-bartholomews-footsteps-to-betalbatim/articleshow/60447144.cms

https://www.nasrani.net/2007/02/13/saint-bartholomew-mission-in-india/

https://medium.com/@juliannoel/proofs-that-two-of-jesus-christs-apostles-st-thomas-and-st-bartholomew-visited-india-749255c0be8 Spmunshi (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even Roman Matyrology of catholic church says that Bartholomew preached in india I don't understant who are you to say that this post is dubious. https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=390 Spmunshi (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way russian orthodox church started in 988 with st. Vladimir of kiev being converted yet its considered apostolic see of st. Andrew so your claim on foundation of a church attributed by a particular date doesn't fit in. Its the tradition of church which beleives st. Andrew preached in russia and it is tge tradition of church which beleives the archbishop of goa and cardinal archbishop of bombay to be the apostolic successor of st. Bartholomew. Spmunshi (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original research arguments are irrelevant (see WP:OR). Just cite a reliable source for the claim you have inserted, i.e., that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Goa and Daman / Goa, Maharashtra is an apostolic see or church. Until you do, your claim is still dubious. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman Martyrology says that Bartholomew "is reported to have preached the Gospel in India after the Ascension of the Lord and there was crowned with martyrdom" (post Ascensionem Domini Evangelium in India ipse praedicasse traditur ibique martyrio coronatus esse). It does not say that he preached and was martyred in God, not in Bombay, nor indeed in what is now called India rather than, say, Pakistan. So where is the reliable source that says that "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Goa and Daman /Goa, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bombay/Maharashtra" is/are an apostolic see or church? Bealtainemí (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have given citation and let the user judge don't poke your nose in this matter or i will remove each and everything in this page. As a member of archdiocese of bombay i want the truth to be known Or else i won't let this site preach half truth. Spmunshi (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You dont have the right to remove my citation or if you do so i will show you how to use my own right Spmunshi (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You dont care about the authentecity of conference of catholic bishops in india website You don't care about the autenticity of anglican communion website so if you want this page to be erased to zero then surely continue as you will and poke your filthy nise into it. Spmunshi (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this. Bealtainemí (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the website of catholic church is a reliable source the website of ccbi is a reliable source but a nestorian heretic like you won't beleive Spmunshi (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does what you inaccurately call "the website of catholic church" say that Saint Bartholomew founded the Church of Goa or the Church of Maharashtra, as you claim? Bealtainemí (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The website of archdiicese of bombay says that their were christians in Maharashtra prior to the Portuguese invasion and in archdiocese of bombay we celebrate 2nd September as the feast of our founder St. Bartholomew the apostle.

If you would say that those christians were st. Thomas christians. You should ask them they reject the proposition that the christianity arrived in Maharashtra was because of St. Thomas the apostle or preached by them. Spmunshi (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can only insert text without citations and i have write tedt with citation Spmunshi (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Matthew in all of this?

I see all the main Apostles in the list, but I don't see Matthew. He was a very important Apostle, and considering that he was one of the actual eye-witnesses of all the inner workings of the 12 Apostles, it is highly likely that his Gospel was written first, in Hebrew, translated to Greek, and then became a source for both Luke and Mark. Instead of seeing Mark as the original source, it makes far more sense that Mark wrote a concise account, based on information he extracted from both Matthew and Luke, and also on things he knew firsthand, based on his more limited interactions as one of the 70 apostles. 2603:8000:44F0:8BA0:6FB7:584A:8E14:3F79 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]