Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

You can sign up to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in discussions of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Feedback request service

Talk:Catholic Church

There is an editorial conflict on how the Bishops of Rome that existed before the East–West Schism should be described in their short descriptions. Both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox claim ecclesiastical continuity with the Great Church that existed from 380 to at least 1054. Both of them believe that they are the One True Church that Jesus established in his ministry. While the exact date is disputed, controversies over whether the Bishop of Rome possesses universal supreme jurisdiction over every other bishop, the Photian schism, the attempted excommunications of Michael I Cerularius and Pope Leo IX, Massacre of the Latins, Sack of Constantinople, and a range of other theological and ecclesiastical disagreements led each to be not in communion with the other by 1215. According to historian Peter Heather, the conclusion of the Fourth Council of the Lateran is the moment when the mutual schism was sealed.

• The large majority of mainstream academic resources and Protestants generally affirm that a mono-episcopate system did not exist in Rome before the 150s. This is a view held by Peter Heather (1), Bart Ehrman (2), Gavin Ortlund (3), and standard academic works on the history of the papacy. They almost uniformly reject the idea that the Bishops of Rome were ever the "head" of the Church until astonishingly late. They view the Roman-Byzantine Emperors as having ultimate practical authority in the church until at least the 800s. This stream of thought sees Peter's establishment of the Roman Church as a "pious fiction" unsupported by the historical account.
• Eastern Orthodox believe that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. However, they believe that this was a conciliar recognition that recognized a honor of a primus inter pares rather than supremacy. They would affirm the Bishops of Rome before 1054 being a "head" in one sense (primacy) while rejecting it in another form (supremacy).
• Roman Catholics agree that the Bishop of Rome has already possessed implicit supreme universal jurisdiction over all bishops and in narrow circumstances can speak ex cathedra. The majority interpretation is that this was at least partially "a development of doctrine" that led up to the statements of Vatican I. A minority, generally confined to traditionalist Catholic theologians, believe that this was always recognized and merely forgotten in the East.

Different theological and historical views have led to a slow-motion, and long-term, edit war lasting for at least a decade between dozens of editors on exactly how the authority of the early Bishops of Rome should be described.

1. Bishop of Rome from [Date] to [Date]
2. Head of the [Optional: Roman] Catholic Church
3. Head of the [Optional: Eastern] Orthodox Church
4. Head of the [Optional: Universal] Christian Church
5. Other description not listed.

I hope that this RFC will resolve this controversy. SirachJohn (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church

How should English Wikipedia label the Bishops of Rome that existed before the East–West Schism?

The terminology is under editorial dispute, and "Orthodox", "Catholic", "Roman Catholic", "Eastern Orthodox", "Chalcedonian", "Imperial", "Great Church", and "Proto-Orthodox Church" are ways that they are currently described.

1. Label them as Roman Catholic/Catholic.
2. Label them as Eastern Orthodox/Orthodox.
3. Label with the commonly used academic terms. (Example: Great Church → Etc.)
4. Leave their infoboxes empty.

This is part one of a two part RFC regarding the early Bishops of Rome. (The other being a RFC on whether they should be labeled in the short description as "head of the church".) SirachJohn (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2026 (UTC)