Category talk:History of the papacy

History of the papacy by period
I propose the creation of a new category that would have the following as children categories.

1 History of the Papacy (33 - 313)	(aka the Apostolic Age)

2 History of the Papacy	(314–476)	(from the Edict of Milan to the fall of the western Empire)

3 History of the Papacy	(477–799)	(from the fall of the western Empire to the establishment of the HRE)

4 History of the Papacy	(800–1053)	(from the establishment of the HRE to the Great Schism)

5 History of the Papacy (1054–1453)	(from the Great Schism to the fall of Constantinople)

6 History of the Papacy	(1454–1563)	(from the fall of Constantinople to the Council of Trent)

7 History of the Papacy	(1564–1793)	(from the Council of Trent to the French Revolution)

8 History of the Papacy	(1794–1928)	(from the French Revolution to the Concordat with Mussolini)

9 History of the Papacy	(1929–date)	((from the Concordat with Mussolini to date)

Am open to alternative period cut-points, particularly the French Revolution one which is not particularly ecclesiastical but could be said to be the real birth of Modernism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's worth a try but we should evaluate afterwards whether these periods have sufficient added value on top of century categories. In other words, is there enough content that goes beyond centuries but stays within the above periods. If we conclude in retrospect there isn't enough of such content we'd better just stick to centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * While I find the idea interesting, I am not sure about the proposed dates:
 * Our article on the Apostolic Age defines it as ending with the death of the last original Apostle: John the Apostle in c. 100 AD. Our article on Christianity in the 2nd century points it as the period of the rise of the Apostolic Fathers, an entire generation of new Christian writers. Our article on Christianity in the 3rd century defines it as the age of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Should all three be included under the Apostolic Age?
 * The Edict of Milan is dated to 313, not 314. As far as the Papacy is concerned, the new period should probably reflect the move of the Papal seat to the Lateran Palace. As for the Fall of the Western Roman Empire it was more gradual than simply ending in 476. Romulus Augustulus was deposed in 476, but his rule was largely limited to Italy. The last surviving Western Roman Emperor was Julius Nepos who continued to rule Dalmatia to his death in 480. A few remnants of the Empire survived. The most prominent was probably the Kingdom of Soissons, which lasted to 486.
 * I am seeing problems in conflating 4 politically distinct eras in the proposed period. During this period the city of Rome itself changed hands between different states and overlords, and the Popes depended on very different political patrons. One period where the Popes were subjects to Odoacer (476-493), the entire Ostrogothic Papacy (493-537), the entire Byzantine Papacy (537-752), and the start of the Frankish Papacy (756-857).
 * The Carolingian Empire/Holy Roman Empire period indeed started in 800, but its control over the Papacy was largely gone by the mid-9th century. For much of the 10th and the 11th century, the Papacy was under the political control of the Counts of Tusculum.
 * I am quite in favor of having the East–West Schism of 1054 marked as the start of a new period. I am much less certain that the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 should leave much of mark in Papal history. The proposed period includes the Viterbo Papacy, the Orvieto Papacy, the Perugia Papacy, the Avignon Papacy, the Western Schism (1378-1417), and the start of the Renaissance Papacy. I would suggest ending the period in 1417.
 * I'd like to have the next period include the entire Renaissance Papacy (1417-1534). The Popes of the Period were politically active and major patrons of the arts, leaving behind a significant cultural legacy.
 * The suggested period includes most of the Reformation Papacy, and its successors to 1793. Why that year? The Papal States did not fall to the French Revolutionary forces until 1798.
 * I am somewhat puzzled by the suggested period. This would include most Popes during the Age of Revolution, the last rulers of the Papal States and the entire Roman Question period where the powers were rather powerless foes of the Kingdom of Italy. What do all these Popes have in common?
 * No real opposition to this suggested period since it includes all the Popes who ruled over Vatican City. Dimadick (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply
 * 1 Agree that the first category should be limited to the Apostolic Age and the Apostolic Fathers. If Polycarp of Smyrna is the last of these, then that brings the range to (33 - 155).
 * 2 So the next range starts at 156. I would be inclined to have this period include the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Edict of Milan. Though I suppose that the establishment of a cathedra is a defining event for any bishop so I'm OK with terminating the period to just before the establish of the Archbasilica of St. John Lateran in 323. (156 - 323)
 * 3 So the next range starts at 324. I see your point about conflating 4 periods. What about conflating just two of them - the Arian captivity? That would include Odoacer and the Ostrogothic Papacy to 537. (324 - 537)
 * 4 So the next range starts at 538. To include the Catholic period under the Byzantine Papacy and the Frankish Papacy. (538 - 857)
 * 5 Agree the the Great Schism is non negotiable. (858 - 1053)
 * 6 Take your suggestion on board your suggest for the Western Schism, though am tempted to give that a mini period in itself. (1054 - 1417)
 * 7 (1417 - 1534) Includes Luther and the Renaissance Papacy. Agree that it's a good break point.
 * 8 After this, I'm at a loss. I was not happy with the French Revolution but needed some marker for the birth of Modernism. Am open to suggestions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think especially in the 19th and 20th century we'd better simply have 19th-century and 20th-century Papacy. For example 1929 seems like a natural cut-off but I'm really not expecting too many articles discussing Papacy until 1929. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with including Odoacer and the Ostrogoths in the same category. I am a bit less certain about having the Byzantine Popes and the Frankish ones in one category, though I see that the period was relatively short. The Western Schism already has its own category: Category:Western Schism though it could probably use some attention. I like Marcocapelle's idea about a category for 19th century Papacy. I don't thing a separate category for the 20th and 21st century would make sence. The 21st century has seen only 3 Popes and there is not yet any particularly defining event uniting them. Dimadick (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)