Talk:Pope/Archive 2

Controversial Office for Catholics
I removed the comment that the Pope's office is sometimes controversial within the Catholic Church. This just isn't the case - historically a Pope's rulings may be controversial etc but there isn't any dispute towards the actual office with the Church.


 * This is a fact and should be quite easily cited. If the office as we now understand it had NEVER been controversial, there would have been no need to declare Papal infalibility at Vatican I.  As it was, 60 bishops effectively abstained on that issue by slipping out of Rome the day before the vote.  The resulting declaration led to a small, but very real schism with the Old Catholics. Centuries earlier, there were disputes between Papal primacy and the conciliar movement.  This needs to be cited, but it is a fact that the office was "sometimes" controversial in the church itself. -- SECisek 14:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the first comment here. To say that the office of the papacy is controversial in the church, would imply that there is some controversy on the office itself. Many Catholics have doubted and do doubt the rather recent doctrine of papal infallibilty without doubting the status of the papacy as a divinely established office and as an essential element of the Church. About that there is no real controversy among Catholics. The doctrine of papal infallibity, along with it's controversy must of course be discuused within the article at the appropriate place.


 * The line in question refers to history, at times the pope's role HAS been controversial within the Church itself, be it in the casses I cited above, or prior to the Reformation, or the Great Schism. At times it has been, if it never was there would be a lot fewer churches not in communion with Rome.  If the Orthodox Churches were not part of the Catholic Church when they expressed their doubts about the office of pope, then the Roman notion of "Catholic" is flawed.  Clearly, the office has "sometimes" been controversial within the Church. -- SECisek 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

older entries
There shouldn't be a photo of John Paul II. He was one of the most important popes in history, so I think it wouldn't be suitable here.

Should the word "pope" be capitalized?
The word pope is capitalized in the beginning of the article, but never again. The article should choose a consistent scheme of capitalization, but I don't know what would be appropriate. 63.100.44.201 20:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pope should be capitalized when it is a proper noun, referring to a definite person. It is not capitalized when referring to the title. So, "the Pope called me this morning" and "a pope called me this morning" are both correct. 75.1.245.155 20:28, 29 September 2006


 * The capitalization question needs to be revisited and defined. The article seems to capitalize "pope" willy-nilly without regard for whether it is being used to refer to a specific person or just as a general title.  If indeed as a general title the word is not capitalized, then the very first use of the word in the lead should not be capitalized.  Please discuss this and let's reach an informed consensus on this issue.  What do various style guides say on the matter? Robert K S 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Papal Titles
The titles are out of order. I don't care to create an account so someone who is a regular reader of this talk page can please fix it. They go in the following order (abbreviated): (1) Bishop of Rome, (2) Vicar of Christ, (3) Successor of Peter, (4) Supreme Pontiff, (5) Primate of Italy, (6) Archbishop of Roman Province, (7) Sovereign of Vatican City, (8) Servant of Servants of God.


 * of the world on earth." Can anyone confirm this? MishaPan 13:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Early history of the papacy
I am editing this new section rather drastically for several reasons. First, the style needs to be made more encyclopedic and terse; there are a number of redundant phrases. Second, not only are there many unreferenced statements, but some of the supports it provides itself aren't really to the point. For instance, it twice states that the beginnings of Petrine theory were developed in the late 2nd Century, but then goes on to cite Gospels written in the mid-1st. And also, beards are essential. (Since these passages were not universally regarded as supporting Papal claims, it would be of great interest to know when Rome first began to use them that way, but we are not told this, and it begs the question to present them as "Petrine theory" as they stand alone.) Third, some of what is says is clearly false. Even today the Pope of Rome is not the only bishop called "pope"; see the "Other popes" section in this very article. Fourth, it's heavily non-NPOV, since it assumes that early non-recognition of the Rome's universal authority is due to "confusion", whereas there are significant numbers of Christians who still regard it as improper from the start.

I think this section is itself a good idea, and as it stands it forms a workable outline, but I'm editing it in conformity to the above objections. TCC - (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Csernica/ TCC, We meet again, but this time I fully support each of your edits. You may recall me from an earlier discussion we once had over at the A Course In Miracles article.  You are correct that this edit was intended only to be a rough draft.  The confusion of the dating of the first instance of "Petrine theory" may arise from the belief amongst Biblical scholars that these specific verses were inserted later, in the latter 2nd century.  I am not certain about this, thus the ambiguity.  I merely generally quoted from the encyclopedia Britannica that includes this same ambiguity.  Further research into why Britannica included this same ambiguity, both stating that Petrine theory dates from the latter 2nd century, and also that its basis was from these verses, might prove to be fruitful and worthy of inclusion here, but meanwhile I agree with your edit to exclude this ambiguity until it can be better clarified.


 * Also you detected my intentional use of slightly POV verbage with the use of the term "confusion". That was due to my concern that this section may become somewhat controversial, as it may seem to some to conflict with Roman Catholic doctrine.  I attempted to write this section in the spirit of respect, yet not of outright subservience to, Roman Catholic doctrine.  While I accept your removal of this term, I do hope that future authoring of this section will continue to be based on a similar respectful, yet not subservient spirit towards Roman Catholicism.  Thank you for your insightful and helpful edits.
 * -Scott P. 23:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No doubt! Using other encyclopedia as sources is a tad problematic IMO. Since an encyclopedia by nature summarizes other work and skimps on the details, when it is summarized yet again it's very easy to inadvertently omit details that are essential to avoid misunderstanding. It would be nice if Petrine theory itself had more information we could mine.


 * I'm surprised to learn of this scholarly opinion concerning Mt 16:15-19. I wonder if the Britannica editors noticed that it raises a host of questions to claim on the one hand that Petrine theory was founded on that passage (probably correct) but that at the same time that it was an interpolation. Surely the other Churches would have noticed at the time that Rome was basing what they saw as novel ecclesiological claims on a Scriptural passage it itself inserted!  This sounds more like certain anti-papal parties grasping at any straw for counterarguments than honest scholarship to me. It's a wonder Britannica even mentioned it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * About my cut of Nicaea: In fact, no Pope attended an Ecumenical Council until the First Lateran Council in 1123, which was also the first Ecumenical Council at which he presided, although legations were frequently sent as they were to Nicaea. His absence does not therefore seem particularly indicative of a smaller role. One might even argue it indicates a position of considerable importance even then, if the bishops of Rome felt they could not leave their see for any length of time even when summoned by the Emperor, as all seven early Councils were. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not proper to say that the pope is only the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, as he is the leader of the Eastern Catholic Churches as well. Ilovespain 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous edit
The following has no specific information, but boldly tells the reader what to think:
 * Pope St. Victor's actions towards the Churches of Asia Minor in the late second century also suggests, many believe, an early understanding of a sort of primacy.

Victor's actions are not even specified. The reader is simply given the RC interpretation, expounded centuries later. I reverted this twaddle. --Wetman 20:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wetman, I agree. At least with Leo I, others used his works as a point of doctrinal refernce, particularly what became called "Leo's Tome."DaveTroy 20:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Style Box
Going through a number of the previous pontiffs I notice that the style box is present in several cases. There was a long discussion on the Benedict XVI talk pages on this topic - can the matter be resolved?

Possibility for debate - a style box for posthumous elevation - ie date made venerable, made saint, reasons therefore where known etc. (This could also be applied to others who have gone through this process.)

Jackiespeel 19:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for rewrite of "Early history" section
Anonymous user 198.234.202.132 deleted references to historical evolution of papacy without any documentation. Reinstated this information. -Scott P. 04:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As there appears to be no objection and no source citation, I have reverted the Early History section to the edit prior to the edit by user 198.234.202.132.
 * -Scott P. 19:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing style
An anon IP 213.203.149.98 has rewrote a section of the Office and Nature section. See this edit for more details. The text he written is shown below:

In prior editions of Annuario Pontificio the traditional title "Patriarch of the West" had also been given, but this title was omitted in the 2006 edition.[1] No explanation for the change has been given.

I reverted his edit twice and I prefer the earlier edit i.e. the one I reverted. --Ter e nce Ong 16:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical Secular Voting Question
I'm curious. Are Popes, the technical heads of state of the Vatican City, allowed to vote in general elections in the countries in which they were born? A friend and I were discussing the possibility (albeit unlikely) of an American Cardinal becoming Pope within our lifetimes, and neither of us could actually answer that question. Did John Paul II or any other previous Pope set a precedent for voting for the national secular offices of their homelands during their "reign," or are they just not allowed to do so? In other words, do Popes actually retain their original citizenship of their birthlands via a dual-citizenship system? Thanks for anyone who can answer my stupid question(s), 05:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In Germany this question was raised as the current pope was elected. The answer was yes: He has been both a German and a Vatican citizen since 1981, and he could vote in German elections, if he wants to. But I don't think that he exercises this right. Gugganij 08:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks...... though would the same apply for other countries (like the US) as well? RPH 16:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In principle the Vatican citizenship is regarded to be cumulative, i.e. it doesn't replace the original one. However, some countries do not accept dual citizenships, if the "foreign" one is acquired later in life - but I don't think that this is the case with the US. Thus, I guess, an American Pope could theoretically still vote in US elections.


 * In general, the Vatican citizenship is not thought to be held for a lifetime (e.g. Cardinals forfeit it, when they take a permanent residence outside of Rome), therefore the Lateran treaty between Italy and the Holy See regulate the case of a Vatican citizen having to foreit it but not having his original citizenship anymore. Those people, whereever they may come from and whereever they may take their residence, are automatically granted the Italian citizenship. Gugganij 21:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I can tell you authoritatively...albeit intuitively...that there will be no American Cardinal voted as Pope in our lifetime. The American Church is riddled with secularism, materialism, and jingoism. The Conclave will never in the foreseeable future risk an American Cardinal as Pope. Arthur Hallett (Australia)

No scriptural and patristic basis for the papacy?
I find it strange that there is a long section on objections to the papacy and there is no analysis of the scriptural and patristic basis for the papacy. Good encyclopedias try to explain the whys. Hope someone can start one section on this.


 * Why? There is no basis for it, outside tu es Petrus; and as St Peter probably never entered Rome anyway, that traditional mythogony is probably fake, too. What's the big deal?
 * Whenever someone talks about scriptural and patristic basis for the papacy, their Protestant slip starts to show.
 * Nuttyskin 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Did St Peter preach the Gospel to Rome? Tradition says so. The historical proof of this is probably as strong as the historical existence of Jesus Christ. The fact is that the first millenium of universal Christianity affirmed the authority of the Roman See as pre-eminent; precisely because its Bishop was the successor to St Peter. The authority of the Papacy clearly evolved in its quality and extent; and along the way, various branches felt increasingly uncomfortable and fell off the tree as the historical definitions of the role evolved; just as the evolving understanding of the person and role of JC caused various groups to become schismatic from the universal consensus of the Christian leadership. But these were mere twigs. Nobody knows a jot about JC apart from what they have received from the Church. Most of the writings about him were edited out by the Council of Nicea. All that we know is what the successors of the apostles agreed was authentic from the traditions they received. History is not entirely theology; or vice-versa. Arthur Hallett (australia)


 * "The fact is that the first millenium of universal Christianity affirmed the authority of the Roman See as pre-eminent". This is a Roman Catholic interpretation of the sources. Others, of equally good will, looking at the same patristic and historical information come to a different conclusion.  So it is not a "fact" but an opinion.  "Most of the writings about him [Jesus Christ] were edited out by the Council of Nicea."  This is a surprisingly secular interpretation.  The Council of Nicea didn't "edit" anything "out" (I presume you mean from the Scriptures).  The question of the canon of scripture was not on Nicea's agenda.  That question had already been settled for the most part.  You are, however, correct in stating that all we know about the person, teachings, and significance of Jesus Christ is given to us by the Sacred Tradition of the Church--including both the scriptures and their interpretation.  The question of authority is what has lead to the divisions within Christianity.  Eastern Orthodox believe authority is vested in the universal church, particularly as it is expressed by the first seven Ecumenical Councils; Roman Catholics believe authority is vested in the pope as the successor of St. Peter; Protestants believe authority is vested in the individual believer as he is inspired by the Holy Spirit.  All three believe that scriptural and patristic evidence is on their side.  MishaPan 14:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation for 2nd Council of Constantinople re: Roman primacy?
I have searched several locations and so far have been unable to find any supporting information as to the 2nd Council of Constantinople having confirmed Roman primacy in any way. In fact the Roman bishop was apparently not even in attendance at this council. Could you please insert a citation? This uncited information was added on 2006-04-23 at 15:52:23 by unregistered user: 163.1.90.189. Thanks. -Scott P. 18:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose in a backhanded way it might have. It exhorted Pope Vigilius to issue a condemnation of the Three Chapters, which he had apparently committed himself to doing earlier but at which he was now balking. It was put in rather strong language too, for someone whom they were not actually anathematizing. "Since it is manifest to all the faithful that whenever any question arises concerning the faith, not only the impious man himself is condemned, but also he who when he has the power to correct impiety in others, neglects to do so." Seeing as they considered his action here of singular importance, that might be seen as a confirmation of his primacy. (And there is, after all, a sense of Papal primacy that's widely agreeable.) But since the council also seemed to feel it had the authority to order the Pope around, it might not provide quite the support that editor was looking for. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Popes didn't attend any of the Oecumenical Councils. They sent Legates. The attendance of Popes in proxy was precisely the defining element of an Oecumenical Council. Anything without him was a mere synod. Requesting his action was a consultative function. No "Orders" were involved. It is clear from all of the patristic literature that the See of Rome was considered pre-eminent. Arthur Hallett (Australia).

Possible Vandlism?
I've noticed that a few times text that should be 'Pope' is 'Poop'. Thinking about I'm pretty sure it's vandlised but wasn't positive, I'd be happy to edit/revert if someone would back my suspicions. &#124;C&#124;ryo&#124;T&#124;ox 02:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pretty blatant vandalism. I've fixed it, but in the future feel free to be bold and do it yourself.  Isopropyl 02:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just fixed some more vandalism. Check the history page, as their were two users that participated. I think we should semi-protect this page.--Thetruthbelow(talk) 23:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I figured as much but with my limited understanding of the Pope (Hence my reading of the article) I was suscpicious although unaware, and yes Isopropyl in the furture I will be more bold. &#124;C&#124;ryo&#124;T&#124;ox 23:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Popes didn't attend any of the Oecumenical Councils. They sent Legates. The attendance of Popes in proxy was precisely the defining element of an Oecumenical Council. Anything without him was a mere synod. Requesting his action was a consultative function. No "Orders" were involved. It is clear from all of the patristic literature that the See of Rome was considered pre-eminent. Arthur Hallett (Australia).

Semi-Protect
I vote that we get this page at least semi-protected in light of the surge of revent vandalism. Thetruthbelow(talk) 02:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What surge? This article gets vandalized all the time, and always has. Fortunately there are many editors watching it, so it never lasts long. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived
I archived discussions through the end of 2005, none of which were active. Fishhead64 15:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Successor of Saint peter
From the article: "He is the Successor of St. Peter as the Bishop of Rome." IMO I think we need to clarify that this is a title for the pope, perhaps something like this: He is the Successor of St. Peter (Title) as the Bishop of Rome. Or perhaps: He is referred to as the Successor of St. Peter and the Bishop of Rome.--Lethargy 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How about, "He is traditionally considered the successor of St. Peter, although there is no historical evidence to verify this claim." Also, would you mind signing your posts using the four tildes?  Thanks. Fishhead64 14:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the language currently there seems to be fine. Fishhead64 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the current language, and sorry about not signing my comments, mybad --Lethargy 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Donation of Constantine
I know this was used to justify papal temporal authority, but in reality it wasn't the actual source of the Papal States' existence (the pope's considerable societal clout just became the sole local authority as others withered away). Since the Donation itself was much younger than the Papal states, stating that the pope's temporal authority was "based on" it is quite inaccurate. Thus my changes earlier. Slac speak up! 00:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is perhaps wrongheaded of me and I won't insist on it any further, but the verb number error was only half the problem. As rephrased, it states a different claim than was originally made. The intro mention(ed)(s) the Donation of Constantine as the sole basis for the Pope's political powers, while the "Political role" section doesn't mention it at all. Which one is correct cannot be determined from either article -- and I actually think the DofC article goes beyond what the evidence can support in how it came to be in ascribing it to the Pope, expressly for the Pope's purposes. In any event, the two should agree, and I'd like to see it cited either way. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't see the above post when I replied. As I said, I'll drop it at this point regardless. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Donation of Constantine has no objective authentication; but neither does the historical existence of Jesus Christ. The fact is that the first millenium of universal Christianity affirmed the authority of the Roman See as pre-eminent. It's authority clearly evolved in its quality and extent; and along the way, various branches felt increasingly uncomfortable and fell off the tree as the historical definitions of the role evolved; just as the evolving understanding of the person and role of JC caused various groups to become schismatic from the universal consensus of the Christian leadership. But these were mere twigs. Nobody knows a jot about JC apart from what they have received from the Church. Most of the writings about him were edited out by the Council of Nicea. All that we know is what the successors of the apostles agreed was authentic from the traditions they received. History is not entirely theology; or vice-versa. Arthur Hallett (australia)

Surely the office of Pope came from Pre Christian Roman times
I was always taught that this office was one of the religious offices available to the Romans, usual time served before senate duty. The transformation into the Chirstian office that we know it as today, came about as a unification move of the Roman empire. Having one religion to unite the peoples of the empire. The Sun worshipers were merged into the Followers of Christ as can be seen by the use a pagan halo's on many religious paintings.

More importantly this office is minor power in Roman empire days became the lasting office of power from the Roman early days. So when was the office officially created in Rome? Sometime after 400BC.

Nexus5 23:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, this is completely incorrect. I know it's the standard theory in some circles, but there's no historical support for it. Of all the titles of the Pope, only Pontifex Maximus has a pagan origin; it was the former title of the high priest of the pagan Roman religion. From Augustus until at least Constantine's time (and possibly until Theodosius) it was held by the Emperor personally. I'm not sure when it devolved onto the bishop of Rome. It was not particularly associated with the Sun cult, since it predated it by centuries.


 * What actually happened was that when Conatantine ordered toleration of Christianity, and then made it the favored religion, there were large numbers of opportunistic conversions by people who figured that they needed to be Christians to obtain political patronage. Many of these converts were former worshippers of Sol Invictus (many were not as well) but there's no reason to think they were any more sincere in their old religion than they were in the new. This large-scale conversion had an effect on church organization and the conduct of services -- for example, there were now too many people for the bishops to personally preside over every Eucharist in their own churches, so they had to delegate this more frequently than before to the presbyters, who presided individually in many lesser churches -- but it had no significant effect on beliefs or doctrine. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Pontifex Maximus article states that the title was held by the Emperors until Gratian disclaimed it in 376. It did not become an official title of the Bishops of Rome until Gregory the Great claimed it at the end of the 6th century. john k 22:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Emporer Palpatine
Why is there a picture of emperor palpatine in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.161.140.3 (talk • contribs)


 * It was vandalism. You can simply revert such nonsense on sight. (In this case care was needed, since there were several layers of vandalism by different vandals in succession.) See Help:Reverting for how to revert. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Sub page" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pope ) still has that remark. I can't find the disussion about making it a featured article or not. 206.53.197.12 14:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Pontifex Maximus translated means: "Supreme Bridge-Builder". It is pre-eminently the title of a Pope (although the 4th the Church claims for him) because his role is precisely that: the source of communion between the Churches. Outside his authority is manifest schism and chaos. JC said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand:" "I pray Father, they they will be one, as you and I are one". There are other examples. Clearly if the wish of JC was this, then his Church had to have an authoritative epicentre. He coveyed this role to Peter in Matthew's gospel. The whole Church recognised it (until the schism of the Eastern Empire from the See of Rome;) albeit not in a clearly elaborated role fashion. But that is the whole developmental role of theology; even in Trinitarian and Christological roles. The whole body of theology groans in its evolution, as does the physical person. But let's do a reality check here. The Eastern Empire fell prey to invasion and repression in its lack of a universal organic understanding. Since the Reformation, the desire for a "pure" Church has led to a plethora of schismatic sects, all warring against their Christian brethren. Today they are legion! Secularism has emerged as the universal glue to replace Christianity as a result as a source of human unity. Rome still exists. It is stronger than ever in the world in its authority. It's detractors and critics are whining wolves in the wilderness: offering no credibile alternative to the vision of JC for a united world of humanity: too ego-identified with quibbling and self-serving. Theology has no objective proof outside of faith. Its proof, like the pudding, is in the eating. Arthur Hallett (Australia)

Papal veto
There should be an article on the Papal veto - see Pius X and Cardinal Rampolla for the last use of this process. Jackiespeel 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Threats against the Pope
It seems like there are a number of terrorist, criminal, and hateful organizations identify the Pope as their enemy. Should there be a section or page about them. One example is Hindu Unity. --Disinterested 05:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word "Pope" in the Orthodox Old Believer Church
In the Orthodox Old Believer Church the priests will often call one and another "Pope". Pope is the slovic word for priest. One example of this that in the Orthodox Old Believer Church their are 2 sects: 1)The Bespopovtsy wich are Orthodox Old Believers with out "popes". 2)The Popovtsy wich are Orthodox Old Believers with "popes". This use of the world "pope" means priset. Another example is from the ranking in the Orthodox Old Believer Church in Alaska as follows: 1) Father Nikolai, Pope(Priest) of Nikolaevsk and all Alaska 2) Archbishop Sofrony, Archbishop and Pope(Priest) of all Orthodox Old Believers outside of Romania 3) Metropolitan Leonty, Metropolitan and Pope(Priest) of all Orthodox Old Believers(Belokrinitskaya hierarchy)


 * I think you mean Slavic. It's not actually the Slavic word for priest (the actual word being Svyashchennik). Pop in Slavic is akin to a colloquial usage of padre in English. In this sense, pope is a usage not confined to the Old Believers, but extended over all the Slavic Churches, whether Byzantine or Latin rite. InfernoXV 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In the section for the Orthodox Church usage of the title "Pope", it is referenced that it is used in the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Coptic Catholic Church of Alexandria and the "Greek" Orthodox Church of Alexandria. This statement is not entirely correct, for the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Churches do use the title Pope with the title of Patriarch of Alexandria, but the Coptic Catholic Church does not, it uses only the title of Patriarch. Please correct this statement. Thank you

Subdeacon Magued Wassef, Saint Michael Antiochian Orthodox Church, Van Nuys, California, USA.

Again, please correct the above mentioned information about the usage of the title "Pope" in the Coptic Catholic Church. This is a uniate church and is under the dominion of the pope of Rome, and there is no other Pope in the Roman Catholic Church.

Subdeacon Magued Wassef

Papal Shop
One of the images in the article carries the tagline "Window of one of Rome's unique Papal shops". What is a "papal shop"? The picture simply shows a store window containing liturgical vestments that any priest might use. There is nothing "papal" about it and its not that "unique".--Dcheney 18:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In Rome, in the center, there are many shops that sell clerical goods: vestments, chalices, and the like. At least one of these shops I know supplies the pope with some of his vestments, although this shops does not advertise this, but keeps it private (hence I don't know which shop actually does that).  The words "papal shop" do sound odd though.  To my knowledge they are privately owned.Lostcaesar 18:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The shop you are thinking of is probably Gammarelli's - the traditional tailor to the Popes. They provide the 3 different sized vestments (small, medium, large) that are placed in the "Room of Tears" just off the Sistine chapel where a newly elected Pope vests before his presentation to the public. In terms of subsequent vestments, the Pope may have them made by anyone he wishes and often that means items from several different shops.--Dcheney 01:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Benedict IX is listed 3 times on the Pope listing
How come we find repeated 3 times Benedict IX in the pope list template found at the bottom of the page?? I guess the names did not repeat and this is more a typo.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legarcia.sp (talk • contribs)


 * New threads on the bottom of talk pages please, and don't transclude navigation templates here.


 * If you click on the article, you find in the very first paragraph that he served as pope three separate times. It was one of those thoroughly disreputable periods in the history of the Papacy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of the statement regarding Pope Urban VI
In the section titled "Early History", a reference is made to a title given to Pope Urban VI because he "ate the babes of the children of Ireland." Is this factually accurate? It looks like vandalism to me. I checked some other internet sources on the history of Pope Urban VI and found no references to such actions by him.

Rendman 20:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of the Papal Tiara
Think you guys ought to see the picture of the Pope with Patriarch Bartholomew I (currently showing at http://www.ecupatriarchate.org/), where the Pope is using his personal coat of arms with the tiara above it...!

Nainfa 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, in my excitement (and wishful thinking), I thought the mitre was the tiara... :o( Nainfa 02:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've done it too, no worries. Lostcaesar 02:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Early history
The 2nd sentance in the Early History sentance seems to state that St. Peter and St. Paul founded Rome:

"During the first century of the Christian Church, the Roman capital became recognized as a Christian center of exceptional note since it was most likely founded by the apostles St. Paul and St. Peter,"

I don't know what that sentance was trying to say, but St. Paul and St. Peter did not create the Roman capital. Bilz0r 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Other recognized popes / Antipopes
Traditionalist Catholic has some interesting material, e.g.

"'Those traditionalist Catholics who recognize Benedict XVI and his immediate predecessors as true Popes stand divided between those who regard the liturgical reform of 1969-1970 as legitimate, even if distasteful, and those who consider it wrong in principle and indeed evil. Into the former camp fall priestly societies such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest and the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, which are recognized as canonically regular institutions of the Catholic Church. Into the latter camp fall organisations such as the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), which exist in a state of dispute with or separation from Rome, although they claim full canonical legitimacy. The conflict between the two sides is illustrated by the SSPX's condemnation of the FSSP and attendance at its Masses. However, some traditionalists attend without qualm Masses celebrated by priests of either type of group."

"'Sedevacantist' groups, such as the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV), the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), the Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement, reject the validity of the popes elected since Pius XII's death in 1958. Sedevacantists stand in opposition to traditionalist Catholics who accept as Pope the present occupant of the See of Rome. Conclavists, such as the True Catholic Church and the Palmarian Catholic Church, have elected or recognised their own popes. Accordingly, they are in the same position as those independent Catholic Churches, such as the Society of St. John of the Cross, that consider themselves traditionalist Catholics.'"

Some mention of these issues should be made in Pope; especially IMHO in light of "have elected or recognised their own popes", a listing of such "alternative popes" would be appropriate in Pope. Cf Sedevacantism, Antipope, Sedevacantist antipope. -- 201.50.248.179 15:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

History of the Papacy
I have embarked on a major expansion of the History of the Papacy article which was just a stub before I started working on it yesterday. I have attempted to keep the focus of that article on the history of the Papacy and NOT on the history of the Catholic church. This is, of course, a very difficult distinction to maintain since the histories of the Papacy and the Church are so closely intertwined. What I've been trying to do is to leave out anything that is more about the Church but not really that relevant to the Papacy. It seems to me, for example, that the work of most missionaries is an important part of the Church's history but not as important a part of the history of the Papacy. For this reason, I have left those out.

I seek your help in making these kinds of distinctions. I have, for the time being, left out the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Reformation. I am trying to decide how relevant these are to the history of the Papacy. They are, obviously, very important to the history of the Church. What should be said about these topics in the History of the Papacy article? Your thoughts on this question would be much appreciated.


 * Since writing this initial request for feedback, I have added information about the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Reformation. What I need now is feedback as to whether I have the right amount of information about each of these topics. --Richard 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also left out most of the 20th century because I ran out of steam. I plan to write something about the relationship of Pius XII to Hitler and Mussolini.


 * I've written a bit about papal relations with Fascists, the Lateran pacts of 1929 and the Reichskonkordat since writing this original request for feedback. Your feedback about these sections would be appreciated.

The role of John XXIII in convening Vatican II is also important. I also plan to write something about the relationship of John Paul II to the Polish Communist government and his role in helping bring an end to Communist domination of Eastern Europe. His role in reversing the modernist trend in the church is also important to document. Have I left anything out? --Richard 09:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to the History of the Papacy article
I would appreciate comments and feedback on the following text which I have written as an introduction to the History of the Papacy article...


 * The office of the Pope is called the Papacy. In addition to his spiritual role as head of the Catholic Church, the Pope also has a temporal role as Head of State of the independent sovereign State of the Vatican City, a city-state and nation entirely  enclaved by the city of Rome.  The history of the Papacy, then, is the history of both the spiritual role and the temporal role over a timespan of almost 2000 years from the arrival of Peter in Rome to the present day.


 * The history of the Papacy's temporal role can be divided into three major time periods. During the period before Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire, the Pope had no temporal power and served only as the spiritual head of the Christian church in Rome.  Even in that spiritual role, it was contested whether the patriarchs of the other churches were subordinate to the bishop of Rome.


 * The second major time period in the history of the Papacy runs roughly from the time when Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire until Rome and Latium were annexed by the Kingdom of Italy in 1870. During this time period, the Pope exerted varying amounts of temporal and spiritual power until the Papal states were slowly taken away from the Papacy in the 19th century.  During this same period, the role of the Pope as spiritual leader of the Christian church was successfully challenged by the East-West Schism and the Protestant Reformation.  It is argued by many that the focus of the Papacy on temporal power was responsible for the loss of moral authority which engendered the corruption which inspired the Protestant reformation.


 * The third major time period runs from the end of the Pope's temporal power in the 19th century until the present day. During this period, the Papacy has asserted its spiritual role as leader of the worldwide Catholic Church.

--Richard 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Current edit (aka vandalization)
"The pope is really felix debieux (not the cat)"?

And here I thought he looked like Emperor Palpatine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.127.128.39 (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

use of term "Pope"
Article says: "Marcellinus (d. 304) is the first Bishop of Rome whom sources show used the title of Pope. "

My question is: Who's the last Pope who didn't use the title Pope? I don't think that every Pope since Marcellinus has used the title, but I could be wrong. Jonathan Tweet 07:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

spiritual authority of the Pope
I added this to the lead, which should summarize the topic and make the reader care. "Over the centuries, the Holy Spirit has revealed more and more of the Pope's authority. He is now known to have unique spiritual capacities that other religious leaders don't even claim to have, such as the ability to speak infallibly. In fact, salvation itself depends on communion with the Holy Father." It was deleted by an anonymous editor. I understand that most people disagree with these statements about the Pope, but they're Catholic teachings, so they should be worked in somehow. Since no explanation for the deletion was given, I'm reverting. Let's discuss. Jonathan Tweet 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above is not NPOV. Protestants will not accept the idea that the Holy Spirit favors the Catholic Pope, any more than Muslims, Buddhists, atheists etc would, or believe that the Catholic Pope is greater than the leaders of other churches, or even admit there is a Holy Spirit. You can make it NPOV by putting "In the First Vatican Council of 1880, the Catholic Church declared the doctine of papal infallibility, which states..." or some such at the start, will give your edit a longer half-life, but stating any religious doctrine as fact will be deleted by any neutral editor. Robogun 18:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The new version makes no supernatural truth claims and looks like NPOV. You were right to find the earlier version unsatisfactory. That said, unsatisfactory edits should be improved, not deleted. See help:revert. When I start editing a new page, I'm never sure what the culture is on that page. Some Catholic-topic pages are goal-tended by defensive Catholics, so my first edits tried to respect the Catholic view. I admittedly went overboard. Jonathan Tweet 19:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Church/Roman Cathloic Chruch (Comment/Feedback)
I'm putting this comment on here as explantion. I've twice reverted back the removal of the Word Roman in the opening paragraph. This has been disucussed ad nausem before. In summary, the opening introduction should correctly state he is spritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church (as opposed to spiritual leader of the Catholic Church. However as per common usage it has been accepeted that refering to the Roman Catholic Church as the Catholic Church is acceptable within the main body of the article itself. E.g. Section 1. Catholics name St. Peter as.... As per common usuage and the text in the introduction the reader would understand that the text refers to the RC church. However the opening paragraph (the intro, the Janet & John bit etc...) sshould state leader of the RC. --- Rehnn83 Talk 18:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of papacy
I've noticed that papacy is capitalized about four times out of five in the article. I double checked with in my Oxford Dictionary, which goes with the uncapitalized version, using the example "during the papacy of Pope John." Unless someone sees something I'm missing, I'll downcase all of those soon. The same applies to most cases of papal. ✤ JonHarder talk 03:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. ✤ JonHarder talk 10:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now can someone do something about all the apparently unwarranted capitalizations of "pope", including the very first use of the word in the lead? Robert K S 11:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. MishaPan 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Political Role of the Papacy
I've removed the following line from the end of the section on the political role of the pope:

"However, papal bulls have had little effect on the modern State"

The phrase "modern state" is far too vague, as is the claim as a whole. While it is true that papal bulls today do not have anywhere near the political importance that they did in medieval Europe, the modern papacy still has an enormous amount of indirect secular/political influence, especially in heavily Catholic areas of the world. The way this section is written now, it makes no real mention of the current level of influence the papacy has, which seems to me a rather glaring omission. I suggest that a separate section be added specifically on the geopolitical role/influence of the modern papacy. As it stands, the article has a weath of historical information, but is somewhat lacking when it comes to things like "the papacy today." 67.142.130.24 03:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC) (snowboardpunk - for some reason I can't log in from this computer)

Western Bias
Most of the article seems to be from a decidely western perspective. For example, why do you have to wade through all sorts of information before you find out--in a short blurb--that Rome is not the only Christian Church to have used the term, and in fact the Egyptian Christians (Oriental and Eastern Orthodox) have been using the term for just as long as the Roman Catholics, and continue to use it to this day? Wouldn't at least a short line in the opening summary, briefly introducing these facts, give a better perspective to the general usage of the term, instead of feeding the false notion that Pope = Roman Bishop? It would also, oh I don't know, treat the hundreds of millions of Christians who were NOT Roman Catholic, but used the term, with a little (token) respect. Western history books ordinarily don't condescend to go into much detail about the Eastern Christians (even though the Near-east was about 1-2 centuries ahead of the western world through most of the middle ages)... but on a more diverse site like this I think such things could be corrected somewhat. Anyway, I'm an atheist, so I really couldn't care less about all the "I'm the right Christian Church" rhetoric, I just like facts and perspective.


 * Please read the Other Popes section of this article before giving comments. --210.213.82.86 06:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Successor of Saint Peter Redux
Ok so I changed it to "He is held as the Successor of Saint Peter, making him, for Roman Catholics, the Vicar of Christ." Your last edit, Gavin, sounded like exclusively Catholics believe he is the successor of St Peter. I don't know for sure for sure, but I'm relatively sure that the Orthodox and Eastern-Rite Catholics acknowledge his apostolicity, while obviously not sharing the primacy which RCs believe in. Do you think this new edit reflects the nuance well enough? Carl.bunderson 17:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Orthodox do indeed recognize Rome as a Petrine See, just as they recognize Antioch as a Petrine See (and an earlier establishment at that). Orthodox do not, however, recognize in the Bishop of Rome any exclusive rights which come to him as a successor of St. Peter. For the Orthodox, all bishops are equally Vicars of Christ. MishaPan 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Anglican opinion is the same as the Orthodox on this matter and the article should reflect that. -- SECisek 19:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So how do we want the sentence to read? Is it unsatisfactory as is? Carl.bunderson 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't feel it is unsatisfactory since your last correction, not at this time, at least. Just putting in another POV. Keep up the good work. -- SECisek 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How about: 'Faith communities which recognize apostolic succession acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as successor of St Peter. As such, Roman Catholics believe the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ, while the other faith communities disacknowledge Petrine primacy among the bishops.' And ty, Sec. Carl.bunderson 20:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, few Anglicans would dispute that Benedict XVI is sitting in Peter's chair, but that does not carry with what Rome says it does. The Orthodox position is simmilar. Still, that may run into trouble. The pope is A vicar of Christ, in so far as all bishops are. He just is not THE vicar of Christ from a NPOV -- SECisek 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And doesn't the "RCs believe the pope to be the Vicar of Christ" address the NPOV issue with the disclaimer while still pointing out the POV of both RCs and others? Carl.bunderson 21:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think so, again, I wasn't registering a complaint. I was just commenting on the subject. -- SECisek 21:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok well I found out that Eastern Rite Catholics acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as special too. So, now I'm suggesting: 'Faith communities which recognize apostolic succession acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as successor of St Peter. As such, Catholics believe the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ, while the other faith communities disacknowledge Petrine primacy among the bishops.' Carl.bunderson 18:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and put this version in, since no one's spoken up against it. Carl.bunderson 23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, I missed this somehow. Actually, the Orthodox don't believe he's the successor to St. Peter in any unique sense, but all bishops are successors to Peter as long as they teach the true faith. And it's not so much papal primacy that's the issue, as the Bishop of Rome has always been the senior bishop of the one Catholic Church, but papal supremacy; his claim to immediate jurisdiction over any diocese, and the necessity of his confirming any bishop or Ecumenical Council, and so on, along with issues springing from that such as infallibility. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So do the Orthodox not view Peter as the first Bishop of Rome then? Cuz it seems like if they did, they would have to view succeeding bishops of Rome as his successors. Carl.bunderson 17:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Prior to the Great Schism, the Bishop of Rome was considered by the Orthodox to be a successor of St. Peter in a specific sense (not just the general sense by which all bishops are his successors)--but not the only one. As mentioned above, the Patriarch of Antioch is also a (specific) successor of St. Peter. It should also be noted that for the Orthodox, Apostolic Succession does not mean only the physical succession through the laying-on of hands, but also perseverance in the apostolic teaching; one's pedigree may be impeccable, but if he wanders from the faith, his apostolic succession is null and void. MishaPan 14:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

More RCC vs. CC fun
We are all aware that the Eastern particular Churches are in full communion with the see of Rome and are part of the Roman Catholic Church. While this issue may not yet be settled please remember: editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing "Roman Catholic" to Catholic. Which is why I reverted. -- SECisek 18:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but per what I just posted on your talk page, saying RCC is technically less accurate than CC. Carl.bunderson 18:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It centers on the the difference between "Latin Rite" and "Roman Catholic Church". The popes have used the term "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to the whole church, East and West. I have never seen an official Vatican use of the term "Roman Catholic" to refer solely to the Latin Rite. -- SECisek 19:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well ok. Parishes do a rather poor job of explaining that then. I'll quiet down about it from henceforth. Carl.bunderson 19:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Could we explain that in the article perhaps? Cause I feel like it will continue to be an ongoing thing. I mean I feel like a lot of people will read it as I did, saying RC to the exlusion of EC. The issue is addressed as follows in Eastern Catholic Churches: "Eastern Catholics are in full communion with the Roman Pontiff, and in this sense are members of the Roman Catholic Church,[3] but they are not "Roman Catholics" in the narrower senses of that term, since they are not members of the local particular Church of Rome nor of the Western or Latin Church, which uses the Roman Rite liturgy and the other Latin liturgical rites.[4]". I realize it might be awkward to include right in the first paragraph, but why don't we include a footnote explaining this point? Carl.bunderson 19:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, sadly, it is going to be an ongoing thing. We know that already. The "narrower sense of the term" is a misuse of the term. "Roman Catholic" does not refer to "Latin Rite" exclusively. That said, I'll foot note it as I don't want to argue about this. Best, -- SECisek 19:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Pope
I have noticed a few times throughout Wikipedia the phrase "the Catholic Pope" instead of just "the Pope". For example, this articles disambiguation paragraph uses Catholic Pope. May I delete the superfluous word Catholic, or are there other sorts of Pope? MortimerCat 08:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are other Popes in the world, but this article makes it clear that the 'Pope' refered to in this article is the leeader of the Roman Catholic Church. -- Rehnn83 Talk 10:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For that matter, even the word "catholic" is disputable as an unambiguous label. It's always a little surprising when we discover our habitual ways of thinking aren't universally understood. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean catholicly understood? ;) -- 12.116.162.162 20:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Sorry for taking you seriously, but "catholic" and "universal" are not synonyms. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * there has been some editing and discussion lately at Pope (disambiguation) regarding the multiple faith traditions using the term. I suspect the content that's found its way into the disambiguation page is in part a reaction to the bare-word article being exclusively concerned with one faith tradition. User:scbomber 21:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's as may be, but this has been hashed out here several times before. You're welcome to have another go at it, if you're in the mood. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pope Names?
Is there a policy when a new Pope is selecting his name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.254.29.228 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge Bishop of Rome with Pope
The Bishop of Rome is the Pope and should not have a separate entry in the Wikipedia. Any objections? Trekkie4christ 19:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree- Yes, but merge, don't delete. -- SECisek 19:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Object- On a second review of the situation I have decided that merging the articles pertaining to the titles of the pope would make the Pope article too long. Since there are so many titles, it would be imprudent to merge them all with this article. -- Trekkie4christ 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Object- "Bishop of Rome" should not be merged into this article. "Bishop of Rome" describes the pope's role as the diocesean biship of Rome.  Also, other papal titles such as "Servant of the Servants of God" and "Vicar of Christ" have their own articles, which contain valuable information.  It would be impractical to combine all the papal titles into this article. Dgf32 01:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree- Bishop of Rome should be combined. If what I read was correct you can't be Bishop of Rome without being the Pope. (Electrobe 10:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Object- Bishop of Rome should not be combined with Pope for a few reasons, not least of which there are several major christian denominations who have broken with the Catholic Church over the Papacy but certainly recognize the validity of the position "Bishop of Rome" as well as its historic importance. TMLutas (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Object- I would vote not to combine. The Pope article is already very long and, as noted, there are denominations that recognize that there is a Diocese of Rome and that the individual known as "the Pope" holds the office, but do not acknowledge some aspect of his authority as asserted under Catholic doctrine (such as universal ordinary jurisdiction). It seems like a more appropriate place to make note of such distinctions and discuss the ecclesiastical significance of the office. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Object- I would also vote to keep the articles seperate, the officies are distinct in my view. Dunfermline Scholar (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation
I think that, in addition to the current 'for other uses of pope' disambiguation, there should be a direct 'for the current pope, see benedict XVI', since 'the pope' is redirected here and this is a name that, I think, many people are going to search for when looking for the current pope. Do you agree?

Andyroo g 10:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine to me.The.helping.people.tick 04:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Predmore IV??
I've never heard of any pope called Predmore I guess it is vandalism, if you read this please try to solve it, i don't feel enough sure tu delete it. Lefairh 04:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. It is vandalism indeed. Some guy named "Arekkun" replaced Pope Celestine IV with "Predmore" on 16 October 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.12.51 (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
I think this article looks very good. I would like to mention some information that might be helpful to improve it. The term Pope is actually cognate with the word Papa and Presbyter which mean Father and Elder. The word priest, coming from the word Presbyter, was often interpereted as Papa which is why in English speaking countries priest are often addressed as Father. It should be noted that a Christian priest is then really a Christian Elder or Fater. Jewish Priest actually are not refered to as such but as Levites. Pagan Priest also would have used a word for themselves based on their own language. In Latin the word Sacredotes was used but this term was later obsorbed by the Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Daniel Chapter 2 Line 34As you looked on, a stone was cut out, not by human hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and broke them in pieces. 35Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, were all broken in pieces and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I noticed that next to the section of longest serving popes someone had placed a picture of Emporer Palpatine (from Star Wars), with a caption claiming him as the longest serving pope. I have removed said image, but am a newbie, and wasn't sure if there was anything else to be done (I just edited the page to remove it). I would appreciate advice on whether anything else should be done to clean up the page...The Young Ones (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly correct. The only thing I would suggest is that you include an edit summary so other people can know what you changed at a glance. Otherwise, thanks for the help! Tnxman307 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Archived
The long list of discussions which were not active have been archived, accessible from the box above. Dunfermline Scholar (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Papal Infoboxes
I have created two infoboxes, Template:infobox papacy and Template:infobox sovereignofvatican which deal with the offices rather than the people who hold them. I hope they meet with approval. Dunfermline Scholar (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Official Title of the Office of Pope
Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church: there is the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (which I believe is the official title of the Universal i.e. Catholic Church, with a big "C"), that comprises 23 sui juris ritual churches, that largest of which is the Western or Latin Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church). Therefore his title ought to be "Pope of the Western Church". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.229.15 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * you're confused over terminology used by the church itself, and that used by the population at large. Roman Catholic Church is the proper, neutral POV and non-toadying term for an article that isn't church material for church members —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaxalotl (talk • contribs) 12:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the actual title of the office of Pope? Is it the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church; The Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church or something else? Can anyone help with this ,at the moment I've gone with the former but I'm not sure if its correct. Dunfermline Scholar (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I my opinion, the pope's official name should be Antichrist, but you might feel different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.156.246 (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure toally myself on the terminology, but wouldn't "Roman Catholic Church" be referring to just one (which happens to be a big) constitutent Church within the Catholic structure, whose identity just happens to be ... Roman? Wouldn't referring to just the "Catholic Church" (big-C) be correct in this case? To be honest, the coat of arms and the title are redundant in light of the fact that "Pope" almost always refers to this Western Christian one, and not the popes of Alexandria etc. 202.89.153.149 (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Pope" does not necessarily mean the one in Rome; there are several others (Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc.) so specifying which one is not a redunancy. MishaPan (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure if this answers your question, but there seems to be some discussion going on at Style (manner of address) about titles of popes, specifically the coptic pope meamemg (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember reading years ago, that one of the titles of the Pope was "Ruler of the world on earth." Can anyone confirm this? MishaPan (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that is nonsense.

As for the term Roman Catholic Church that name is not to be confused with the Latin Rite which is one of the 23 sui iuris particular Churches. Roman Catholic Church is used to refer to all 23 Churchs in union with Rome. -- SECisek (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I was also of the understanding that the title of the church was the Roman Catholic Church. I also think the coat of arms etc are important- if not to distinguish between Popes purely for informative value...however have we still not worked out the title of the office? I was on the Catholic Encyclopedia and they used the title Pope. Dunfermline Scholar (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the Pope does not have one "official" title but many: Supreme Pontiff, Bishop & Metropolitan of Rome, Servant of the Servants of God, Vicar of Christ are all examples, more or less equally official. I belive that documents are usaully signed Benedict P.M. Servant of the Servants of God. P.M. is for Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff) that could therefore be called the most official, but Bishop of Rome is probably the least P.O.V. and best for Wiki usage, If any of that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are many official titles, cf. http://www.ewtn.com/jp2/papal3/titles.htm. "Bishop of Rome" is clearest, simplest and least controversial, and simply "Pope" is fine. "Pope of Rome" would be clearer (distinguishing from some other "popes") but I don't think it's really used and might sound derogatory. "Roman pontiff" is used a lot by the Church. Vikslen (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Vik Slen 2008/05/10

The official title of the pope is pontifex maximus which dates back to etruscan days. There were five bishops of christendom under constantine. the pope was bishop of rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.188.183 (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested addition under "Titles": "History"
I suggest adding the following below the first paragraph under "history" in the "Titles" section. I have already added this to the "Bishop of Rome" article.

The Christian Church prior to Constantine reserved the titles, "Vicar of Christ" and Vicar of the Lord" exclusively for the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus sent to His Apostles to complete their training (John 16:12-15). Tertullian demonstrates this fact in the following quotes.

Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles, — is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?

For what kind of (supposition) is it, that, while the devil is always operating and adding daily to the ingenuities of iniquity, the work of God should either have ceased, or else have desisted from advancing? whereas the reason why the Lord sent the Paraclete was, that, since human mediocrity was unable to take in all things at once, discipline should, little by little, be directed, and ordained, and carried on to perfection, by that Vicar of the Lord, the Holy Spirit.

Tim Warner, December 27, 2007 71.100.99.165 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and thrown it in there. Dunfermline Scholar (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested addition under Objections to the Papacy
The Objections to the Papacy section appears to address objections from a rather narrow perspective that is limited to certain Christian views. The section should include a brief note stating that certain protestant churches historically have considered the Pope to be the Antichrist, that atheists consider absurd the idea that a man can rule by divine power, and that feminists interpret the Papacy as an ultimate form of usurpation of power by an old man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.151.171 (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with the protestant AntiChrist notion's addition to the article, atheists also find the idea of God absurd so that isn't really that notable. Can we find sources for the feminist attitude? Dunfermline Scholar (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon second reading I note that those issues are addressed bar the feminist and atheist attitude...so I don't think its a narrow perspective at all. Dunfermline Scholar (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Cyprian was "the first papas"
As far as I can find, the first recorded instance of Heraclas being called a pope was after his term, in a letter by Dionysius. Cyprian was designated a pope years before that in 250. The article is locked for me, so...? AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

History section
I'm working on the history section. Leadwind (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed "Formation" of the papacy
To my knowledge, the Catholic church holds that the papacy was formed by Christ himself in the last year of his life (33 A.D. by their account).

Who disputes this date and why? Why would the reason given by the disputee be sufficient to trump the statements of the organization headed by the papacy? Wouldn't any organization's own historians be preferred over independent analysis on such a question? (This would be likened disputing the founding date of a corporation--the corporation itself certainly knows best as to when it was founded.)

If good reasons are not found/provided, I propose changing it to read "Foundation circa 33 A.D." (If the dispute resolves around the particular historical year of Christ's death, then "first century A.D." would be acceptable as a compromise.) for the sake of completeness and the avoidance of an unsightly gaffe in the article. Lwnf360 (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

THIS is certainly nonsense. First of all, only a few Roman Catholic theologians would say Jesus literally and HISTORICALLY founded the papacy in his lifetime (before his death??). (And very few church historians/New Testament scholars would say he died in 33 A.D.) That's more a naive popular understanding. Not a good source of objective information.

The papacy, by almost any account, has evolved so much over the centuries that it is more a theological claim than anything else even to call it the same institution as it was in the first century. I would certainly be reluctant to say Jesus made Peter Bishop of Rome before there were any Christians in Rome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikslen (talk • contribs) 02:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

On the Roman Catholic Church article they have in their infobox the founder of the Church as traditionally, Jesus. We could here follow suit with traditionally 33 AD. Gavin Scott (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

head popes
In the pope are consolidated many different descents of supposed Holy priest status.
 * 1) one is the blessing passed from Christ to St Peter to be the head of "his" /Christ's church
 * 2) another is the agreed upon blessing of Emperor Constantine when the cross appeared in the sky along with the words "in this sign you shall conquer"; with scholars agreeing this sky wide blessing upon Constantine was unique making him a blessed person / Emperor; and the church contrived a procedure to entice Constantine to yield all his authority to the church; and thereafter the Bishop of Rome would consecrate back to Constantine the right to rule ...; if you followed that, in the middle remained with the church all that blessing poured out on Constantine in effect to be the head of the earth : then, only then, after this procedure which some call the "trick of Constantine", only then, did the Bishops of Rome begin to call themselves Popes, Vicar's of Christ ....
 * 3) the pope's also assumed the high priest of Rome title that only a key aristocrat had had in the Roman times including e.g. Julius Caesar, a status as the highest priest.... that title was called Pontifex Maximus

All these posturings by the Pope, of course, do not elevate the office at all, as that is in truth only done by God.

And the actual office that could be called the "head pope" office, far higher than any pope, is the GM of PS.(see those lists and articles). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.166.166 (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * critical remarks removed by wiki during submission ?14:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)14:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm.....what? Gavin Scott (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * head pope at present is the Lord, Jesus, presaent on earth judging the nations, as confirmed by Pope John Paul in his remarks just before his death 2 Apr 2005, "I looked for you, you came to me, I thank you". /76.214.45.153 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)   /  / 76.214.45.153 (talk) ~ / ~ 76.214.45.153 (talk)/

Wiki loses again
I just can not believe it. Every time I come to this web site to get just some factual information I alway, every single time, run into layer after layer of anti Catholic garbage. How anyone can sit there and dispute the fact that the Pope was instituted by Jesus and confered the office on Peter in 33 A.D. is well beyond me. Too many drugs on the market is all I can think. 80% of all Christian (and this is only assuming the protestants are still included in this word for indeed I dispute that claim) consider the Pope to be the sucessor to St. Peter and so the office of Pope was founded by Jesus and given to Peter in 33 Anno Domini. Oh, but self appointed pastor Billy Bob with the shack, I mean "church", out in the woods who has never even pickup a Bible in his life wants to dispute this rock solid historical fact so Wikipedia has to through a disclaimer up to appease all the hate mongers. Every time I come to this site I always find one of these reasons to never come again. I am so upset over this and countless other things that I am overriding the suggestions of all the teachers here and banning this site completely from this school. I just wish you all could finally get some backbone and integrity to stop all the non sense going on here. Deposit of all human knowledge, yah right, more like anti Catholic magnet. My students do not need to be exposed to this hate speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.43.241 (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * LMAO if you imagine that picking up a Bible is somehow an assistance in determining "rock solid historical fact" you've probably been taking the wrong hallucinogenics yourself - have a word with your dealer james gibbon  21:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I just stopped myself after a long reply, when I suddenly remembered we're not supposed to feed trolls here.--SidiLemine 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you just did it User:$yD!. Please make constructive edits and not engage in fighting. In answer to the original point, because some people dispute Peter's consecration as the first Pope we have to give note to that in the article. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I just realised. Please accept my appologies. To the original poster, please identify "pastor Billy Bob". Also, please be advised that Protestants are consideres Christians by the vast majority of people and represent 40% of said christianity by the smallest estimations. Yours Truly, Sidi.--SidiLemine 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You will need to show some numbers if you want to claim that protestants make up 40% of Christians. To my knowledge they make up less then 20% of Christians worldwide, oh but you Americans probably were thinking that the world stops at your boarders again. Latins clearly make up more than half of all Christians and that is even assuming that the church of Albion in protestant and not catholic as they claim. Then you have the Byzantines that are a solid 25%. So then even if protestants were all that was left you still are only 25%. But then we have to consider the Coptic church and the churches with them and the Assyrian church and we discover that all of them together out number the protestants. Many of these oriental Christians do not consider protestants as Christians by the way. So then, even if we accept groups such as JWs or Mormons as Christains, you are still less then 20% of all Christians but even fellow protestants say that JWs and Mormons are no longer Christians (how judemental of you) and so the only way for protestants to come anywhere near a number like 40% is to be racist and say the non whites are not people and thus can not be Christians or to say that Catholics are not Christians. Either way, you go way down the deep end and ignore all legitimate theological study. A large number of theologians do not accept more then half of protestantism to be Christian anymore. The Catholic Church has stated that it is possible for protestants to be Christians if they still practice baptism but something like 40% of protestants have even gotten rid of that. As to the pope thing, yah that is pretty antiChristian to claim that the office didn't originate with Peter. At the very least you have to accept it as apostalic. Even the Byzantines, who really don't like the Pope accept that. More then 80% of all Christians accept this and all the historical evidence points to it. (Yes there is historical evidence). You have to specifically ignore almost everything and cling to your own made up prerendered conclusion to say that the Pope was not apostalic in origin. Saying that the Pope is not the same office that Peter was given by Christ, or at the very least dates back to Paul coming to Rome is like saying that your president and constitution are only 8 years old. It would be like saying that Bush is really the continuation of the Roman Empire. You can claim it all you want and call yourself a historian or theologian but you are still dead wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.27.242.79 (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The claim above that 40% of Christians are Protestant does seem a wild exageration especially when he throws in that that's a low ball figure. I therefore assume he simply means that somewhat over 40% of Christians are not Catholic, which is true. However it's my understanding that the Orthodox Christians the majority of the Non-Catholic Christian minority do believe that the Bishop (Patriarch) of Rome is the sucessor of St. Peter. They merely posit "so what". The last poster is corect up to half way through, then goes into his own strange 40% number about Protestants not practicing Baptism which is, well, strange. That's my .02$ and I'm sticking to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I'm trying to figure out if 60.47.43.241 is really naive, really mean, or both. Probably both. He assumes that because the Roman Catholic church claims to be the direct successor of Peter then it must be true. Nothing so foolish as blind faith without any scientific evidence. I guess then I, as a Jew, are truly one of G-d's chosen people and all Christians are not, since that's what Orothodox Jews (of which I am not one) claim. A little skepticism is a healthy thing, and a blanket statement about Americans and indeed simply assuming the writer is American due to his opinion, both demonstrate that 60.47.43.241 is a naive, mean-spirited fool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.4.54 (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The easiest way to do this is to say "Catholicism recognizes that Peter was the first pope, appointed by Jesus in c. 33 AD" and reference something like the Catechism. 60.47.... - can you be more specific about your concerns (ie: what was removed and when) so we can give a better answer? --h2g2bob (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is pathetic. There is so much uncritical Catholic dogma masquerading as historical fact ... appropriate for a church publication, but hardly a neutral encyclopedic article that caters to everyone. Why should we be saddled with this sort of propaganda when the RC church produces a very fine non-neutral encyclopedia for its own purposes? The troll should count himself lucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaxalotl (talk • contribs) 13:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a specific grevience with the article and a specific suggestion for a solution to that problem, then post it. Otherwise, don't clutter up the talk page with rants.  This article has been around a while and gone under several revisions and re-writes and it has arrived at this place.  Open a real encyclopedia and you will find that they are generally LESS critical than wikipedia is.Farsight001 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter's name
Why is a section titled Pope devoted overwhelmingly to 11 paragraphs dwelling on the origin of Peter's name? In a section with this title, in an article on the Pope, this topic is either out of place or deserving of at most a couple of sentences, and it tells us nothing about the role of the Pope in Roman Catholic theology so it doesn't belong in this section at all. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Pope in RC Theology is essentially his position and power and why he has it. He has it because Jesus gave Peter the responsibility of heading the Church- by changing his name to Peter, meaning rock. Upon this rock i shall build my Church, so the origin of Simon Peter's name is of vital importance.Gavin Scott (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't follow you because you have a couple of implications of the form A therefore B or A requires B where there is no obvious relationship. (a) There is no requirement that someone's name be changed from something to something else in order for him to hold such-and-such position. (b) So say for the sake of argument changing Simon's name to Peter was important. So it happened, and the end result was the end result. There is nothing in the recounting of the details that gives the slightest sign of their bearing on the outcome. If Peter was the Pope because Jesus made him Pope, then Peter was the Pope because Jesus made him Pope. This isn't like a legal form where if you forget to check one of the boxes in Section D on page 2 you'll be charged a late filing penalty or be refused the right to enter one of the countries on your vacation itinerary. Since when were God and Jesus subject to bureaucratic rules, such that if they broke one their intentions would be thwarted? &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have noted what I posted was terribly written, let me try again. Names didn't have to change you're correct. However, the Pope's authority over the Church is based on the event where Simon's name was changed to Peter. Peter meaning rock-upon this rock I shall build my Church. So the event is very significant. Why? Because the foundation of the Papacy is that name-Peter. Many protestants say the rock wasn't Peter himself but rather his confession of faith. However, Catholics maintain that: if Christ was referring to Peter's Confession of Faith as the rock then he wouldn't have changed Peter's name from Simon to Rock.

What I am trying to say is, the article goes into such depth about the name Peter because it is really the only justification for the Papacy. Peter was the rock upon which Christ built his Church- it was this rock (Peter) who entrusted the keys of heaven too...I hope I was clearer that time. Oh, congratulations on the whole "section D of page 2" thing, seemed a bit of a waste of time as rather than making you look intelligent it made you look quite obnoxious and rude, but it made me laugh all the same. Gavin Scott (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I at least made you laugh. I didn't mean to appear obnoxious and rude, but sometimes to people who are brought up with a doctrine it's all so self-evident that the lack of any obvious connection between two or more elements of the doctrine can only be made apparent by stepping outside the box with a rather less scriptural analogy. I don't mean this in a bad way: we all have our unspoken operating premises that hinder mutual understanding until someone else gets us to take a look at them from the outside. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, well all is well. I hope I've helped you see why Peter's mere name is so fundamental to the Papacy and theology behind it and thus, why it has such a large entry. Gavin Scott (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do understand that there is an issue, but I had to think about it really hard and finally realized that the problem is that while an explanation of the issue belongs there, the explanation that's there really needs to be rewritten. It's highly disorganized. It doesn't begin with a thesis statement explaining the point of all the details that are being displayed, something to the effect of what you told me. Until you explained it, I had never known and couldn't get from the article that Peter's traditional role as first Pope relies so strongly on this semantic twist! In the sort of way that I described, this section was written from within the box, assuming the reader already knows the context to which the details apply. It's also entirely too detailed, in my opinion, and sentences like, "If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the translation of Christ's Aramaic into Greek would have been "lithos," which means "small stone" in Koine Greek" clearly read as an injection of some editor's viewpoint, an attempt to establish a purely speculative argument as dispositive fact. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I shall try and fiddle about with it. Gavin Scott (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection Tag
Does the semi-protection tag need to be there? I know it helps non-users who wish to contribute to the article understand why there is no edit tab on the article, but it really does look ugly, I know its not a huge issue, but isn't there some sort of alternative that doesn't lessen the opening of the article? Gavin Scott (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Title
Given the existence of the Coptic Pope, among others, how is it NPV for this article to be titled simply "Pope"? Wouldn't "Pope (Roman Catholocism)" or something to that effect be more appropriate for an article dealing exclusively with the Bishop of Rome? 161.253.21.166 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Other pope titles can be found in Pope (disambiguation). The disambiguation link is aptly placed at the top of the article. --Jacob.jose (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the disambiguation link doesn't fix the fact that this is patently inaccurate. Worse, it is inaccurate toward a particular point of view making it out of line with Wikipedia rules about NPV in addition to being inaccurate. The fact is, the Title of Pope dates back to the five heads of the Pentarchy and was not - as the Roman Catholic Church implies - limited to only the Bishop of Rome. All the Bishops of the five cities of the Pentarchy were, and still ARE, called Pope. Those cities are (alphabetically) Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome. In fact, they were all Popes within "One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of God" (NOTE: Catholic simply means Universal here, not just the Church of Rome). Yes, all five of them co-existed prior to the first schism of the Church which occurred at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

It was at that Council that a Coptic secretary named Athanasius - the secretary to the Coptic Pope, Alexander - wrote the Nicean Creed which is recited (with almost no modification since it was first written) by over 1 billion Christians today around the world. He was only 32 at the time. He went on to succeed His Holiness, Pope Alexander, as the next Pope of Alexandria, and to write some of the most widely read theological teachings in all of Christendom.

Keeping with this subject though, ALL of the heads of those five cities ARE called Pope and have been since prior to the schism of the One Church.

To disregard this history because of the great number of members of the Roman Catholic Church is offensive and - more importantly to an encyclopedia - inaccurate. Until this matter is properly handled, I will not provide any financial support to Wikipedia and will urge others I know to do the same. Mystery Monk (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not POV to title this article as Pope because when someone says Pope they usually mean the Pope of Rome. Wiki policy in these cases is to create a disambiguation page (has been done) to link to the more ambiguous uses of Pope.Gavin Scott (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * While people USUALLY mean the Pope of Rome, that is the wrong question to ask. Is the goal of Wiki to document and educate based on what "people usually mean" or is the goal to be an accurate, precise, and informative source of information?  It seems that the proper thing for an "encyclopedia" would be to present accurate information based on fact.  Actually, informing people about little known facts is perhaps the most important function of an encyclopedia.  The importance of precision and accuracy here, as in all cases, should outweigh popular opinion or the layperson's understanding of a subject. Mystery Monk (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there are other "popes," this page should be titled "Pope (Roman Catholicism)." Leadwind (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Park East Synagogue visit
Very brief but very touching. Shalom! 204.52.215.107 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Papa Pope Leaving JFK
8:00 PM 20 Apr 2008, Pope Benedict XVI leaving JFK, thanks for your visit papa Pope.

/willie jr 76.214.45.153 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

list of black popes
The head of the Jesuits used to be called the "black opope" due to 1) the Jesuits, including their leader, always wearing a black frock and 2) the larger size of the Jesuits' community and their wider influence. Shouldn't then a listing of these "black popes" be included at the end of the article where various lists are included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.178.52 (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Superior_General_of_the_Society_of_Jesus for that list. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest, that erase Slovene Wikipedio, because he doesn't have respect to pope. --213.250.22.238 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation needs fixing
Out of deference to Popé, the disambiguation should read Pope and Popé, not just Pope alone. JMCAZ (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Lutheran and Baptist POV
The article gives a large Evangelical POV, quoting extensively from fundamentalist baptist literature. It's important to know that these Baptists represent barely 2 % of Christians and that lutherans represent less than 10 %. 69.157.233.182 (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

history
I've been adding to the history section, which has been rather thin. Leadwind (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact or Fiction?
76.123.53.241 (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)07/09/200876.123.53.241 (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Silver hammer to the head of the dead pope three times? Sounds reasonable when we consider the day and age in which these rituals were founded. However; the UK paper "The Guardian" ran a story mentioning this, and were corrected by the Vatican.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2003/nov/25/correctionsandclarifications

Silver Hammer. Fact, or Fiction?
 * Fiction- they break his seal with a silver hammer according to Snopes. Gavin Scott (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Crusades
Shouldn't there be SOME mention of the crusades (military campaigns against muslims, jews, pagans, etc) led by the popes in the middle ages? -Laikalynx (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Crusades are covered in the article History of the Papacy. This article is about the office of the Pope and the history section only covers (and rightly so) events which had a large effect on the Papal office otherwise the history section would take over the entire article, however it is just a summary and for the history of the Popes you should go to the aforementioned article. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In theology or in mythology
changed the title "The pope in Roman Catholic theology" to "The pope in Roman Catholic mythology". I am not sure about this change, but I suppose theology is the wrong word, as it is the study of god, which the pope isn't. Anyway, I thought it should be noted here. --h2g2bob (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia "Christian theology is discourse concerning Christian faith. Christian theologians use biblical exegesis, rational analysis and argument to understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote Christianity." Thus, the Catholic Theology includes the Pope. According to Dictionary.com "the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity." Thus, it applies again to Pope. Howeverm I have changed to to The Pope In Roman Catholic Tradition, for the meantime.Gavin Scott (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, if no-one noticed, Bennerz seems to be a rarely-used and vandal-only account. It's pretty easy to see that it was a petulant vandal edit; as such, I have reverted to the last version before his. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, thing is h2g2bob seems to think that theology is the wrong word- this creates a dispute. Even though I think theology is the proper word evidently there is a differing opinion here. Gavin Scott (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, ok. I guess it is something to be discussed. But I agree with you that it is in the field of theology; if you take an intro theology class, it will discuss the papacy. Also per the definitions, there is no need to change from 'theology' to 'tradition'. 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As stated I agree, I suppose we have to wait for h2g2bob's reasons against using the term theology- I suspect its based on his understanding of what Theology is. However, I would strongly object to mythology which I feel implies that something is untrue (which is why I changed it to Tradition). Gavin Scott (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, it should be "The Pope in Roman Catholic ecclesiology" or "Roman Catholic polity." But "tradition" works too. After all, would one title a section "The Archbishop of Canterbury in Anglican theology"?  It sounds odd.  fishhead64 (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ecclesiology seems the best suggestion to me; I suppose it is better than theology, and I'd say it is more precise than tradition. And honestly I find nothing odd about saying 'The ABC in Anglican theology'. The Lambeth conference has really made me wonder about that very point. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not down with 'mythology'. Granted, it doesn't technically mean untrue, but it def. has that connotation and is used that way in present-day English. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, are we moving for a consensus to change it to Pope in Roman Catholic Ecclesiology? If we are, I would support the change. Gavin Scott (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this has been quiet for a few days, so I'm gonna be bold and change it to ecclesiology. It feels like everyone's fine with that. If not, discuss again. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Schism of the East vs. Great Schism
In my opinion, the article should refer to the "Great Schism" instead of the "Schism of the East" for the benefit of NPOV policy. The modification made by me to that respect has been reverted out of fear for confusion with the "Western Schism". I say that this is not the case, as (1) the year 1054 is given, which is the year of the Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and does not require any further explanation, and (2) as I quote from the article Western Schism:


 * The Western Schism is occasionally called the Great Schism, though this term is more often applied to the East-West Schism of 1054.

I propose changing it -- if not to "Great Schism" -- at least to "East-West Schism", as the biased "Schism of the East" tends to imply the Church split because of the Orthodox Church, and is not NPOV. Danielsavoiu (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I suppose because Great Schism can be used to refer to both, although predominantly the East-West Schism, we should avoid using the term. I do not think that calling it the "Eastern Schism" is POV however, I would prefer to call it the East-West Schism purely as I feel it is a more descriptive term and also it avoids accusations of being Western-Centrist (which I suppose we are sometimes). Gavin Scott (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, I'm changing it to "East-West Schism", as it seems like a neutral-ground solution. Everyone all right with that? Danielsavoiu (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Automated review
The following suggestions were generated by an automatic javascript program, and are consequently prone to the occasional error. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called  ==The Biography== , it should be changed to  ==Biography== .[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?]
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * it has been
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), traveled (A) (British: travelled).
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * “In the year [of] 1950”
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]


 * I worked on the lead some. Leadwind (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(Anti-)PopeCallixtus III
Article states: Some objectors to the papacy use empirical arguments, pointing out that popes Callixtus III(recognized by the Roman Catholic Church to be an anti-pope) and Alexander VI were so corrupt as to be unfit to wield power to bind and loose on Earth or in Heaven.

Anti-pope part is problematic because there are actually two persons - Pope Callixtus III and Antipope Callixtus III. From the context, it is more likely that the critiques are against pope Callixtus III (the one which is still recognized as pope by Roman Catholic Church), so the parenthesized remark does not hold. It is as if we would say in the article about Theodore Roosevelt, that president Roosevelt declared war against Japan. President Roosevelt actually did that, but it wasn't Theodore Roosevelt but Franklin D. Roosevelt. I'll remove the parenthesized part. -- Obradovi&#263; Goran ( t al k  12:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)