Talk:Pope Gregory VII

Untitled
Family Can you list his family members?
 * He wasn't from a noble family, so there's little information. --Wetman 14:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What about Anna Comnena's commentary on Gregory VII in the Alexiad, concerning his torture of Henry's ambassadors? Dawes, page 34. Smalexand (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anna is a huge apologist for the Comnena family, and was openly disdainful of all the 'Latin' west.

I've changed the name of the Battle of Hohenburg to the First Battle of Langensalza, since that already exists in the Wikipedia. Most Germany sources consider it the Battle of Homberg, as well. LTC David J. Cormier (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure that the picture is of Gregory VII? Gregory I. was usually depicted with a dove at his ear.ECmarge (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed an image of Gregory I rather than Gregory VII, and I've deleted it for that reason. The French title of the image denotes it as Gregory I. The image is from MS315 tome 2 in the Municipal Library of Douai. This is a selection of the works of Gregory I. The miniature shows the classic iconography of Gregory I: i.e. the Holy Spirit dictating words, which Gregory is then dictating to his monks from behind a curtain. The Catalogue, Les Manuscrits à peintures en France du VIIe au XIIe siècle (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1954), 63, no. 154 also identifies the figure as Gregory I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicumque (talk • contribs) 02:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's good to get rid of the actually incorrect photo, but the new one is also more or less useless, as it was drawn hundreds of years after his death! There was an drawing of a bearded man on this page at one point that was replaced by the Gregory I drawing -- any way we could get it back? --Jfruh (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I found it and put it back in the article. --Jfruh (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Image
What was the motivation for the change of image in this edit? There's not much data on either image page about their provenence, though the original image is listed as being from an 11th century manuscript, so there's a chance it might be contemporary (i.e., executed by someone who knew or had seen Gregory). Contemporary images should always have priority, it seems to me. --Jfruh (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On that note, I read somewhere that Gregory the Seventh was a little person (a midget). Is this true? Czolgolz (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Little Person
I've read that Pope Gregory VII was a little person (midget), but never in a reliable source. Anyone want to weigh in on this? Bkatcher (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Early Career
I don't mind Malus Catulus' change from 'early career' to 'early life', but I do object to his reason, which, IMHO, is pure POV. Clergyman do have careers. Even Roman Catholic clergymen. Some are University Presidents, some are teachers, some are 'professional theologians' (a very widely used term), some are bureaucrats, some are courtiers, some are diplomats (there is even a papal diplomatic school and diplomatic corps), some are lawyers, etc. Let's not be narrow minded about this. --Vicedomino (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit the Lead
The process that led to Gregory's canonization is part of his posthumous reputation and belongs toward the end of the article, not in the lead paragraph. Becoming a saint was not a part of his life, and not one of his achievements. --Vicedomino (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Being a saint has everything to do with a person's life. Elizium23 (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It belongs to his afterlife. --Vicedomino (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to know much about the process by which saints are declared. The cause is chiefly an investigation into the heroic virtue of the subject's life. While miracles attributed to their intercession are considered as evidence that they are in Heaven, their requirement can be waived for a good cause. At any rate, none of this detail is in the lede, doesn't need to be, and the summary as it exists is perfectly fine. Elizium23 (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. I, at least, have read Benedict XIV's treatise on Canonization,,  as well as several published processes on various canonizations, e.g. Thomas Montecatinus, Antonius Franceschettus (Procurator causae), Prosper Lambertini (Fidei Promotor), and Ioannes Zuccherinius (Subpromotor fidei), Beatificationis et Canonizationitionis ven. servi Dei Innocentij Papae Undecimi Positio super Dubio an sit Signanda Commissio introductionis Causae in Casu (Romae: Typis Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae 1713). I read a certain amount in connection with the teaching of Zola's Lourdes, an exposé of the hucksterism surrounding the cult of Bernadette Subirous.  I've read Garry Wills' Papal Lies, about Maximilian Kolbe's case for sainthood, I've followed the Padre Pio matter for 25 years or more; I've followed the efforts of the Knights of Columbus to get their founder canonized, which they retail in every issue of Columbia magazine. Recently I've been interested in Pope Francis' efforts to rein in the SC Causes of Saints from their free-wheeling practices and shabby medical authentication process.  Your point of view is POV-Catholic, and problematical in a Wikipedia article.  The majority of people in the world are not Catholic (I have a degree from a Catholic University, where I studied both philosophy and theology), and many do not believe in an afterlife.  The article must not force your views on the world.  And BTW, Gregory was not canonized until 1606;  over 500 years of Catholic history did not consider him a saint.   Your appeal to my supposed ignorance is a low blow, and not in accord with the standards of polite discourse. --Vicedomino (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my failure to assume good faith. I have moved these sentences into a standard section. I hope that helps. Elizium23 (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Gregory VII and Universities
I reverted an edit (from the Catholic Encyclopedi) giving Gregory VII credit for the founding of European universities on the grounds of a letter encouraging cathedral schools.
 * Cathedral schools were not universities, and they existed for many centuries before Gregory VII. Is there any proof that his letter brought about the founding of a cathedral school??
 * Gregory's action is just a letter, not an action. He did not found a cathedral school in Rome, or a University. That was the work of Boniface VIII in 1305.
 * The earliest university (arguably Paris) cannot be demonstrated to exist until ca. 1100, more than a century after Gregory's letter. The fact might rather suggest that there were other forces that led to the foundation of a university that were much more important.
 * Paris, Oxford, Bologna and other universities were the natural outgrowth of local and regional forces, not the work of the Papacy.
 * The argument (it's really only an assertion) of Gregory's importance is based on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, the notion that because one event comes after another, the earlier one had to have been the cause. Some evidence, any evidence, that universities were being founded because their founders were inspired by Gregory VII is necessary to establish the claim. This would be like giving Thomas Edison credit for the LED light bulb because he improved the incandescent light bulb.
 * The claim comes from a POV Catholic source, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and not as a established fact but as an assertion. Is there a better source that makes the same claim??

--Vicedomino (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Vestments subsection
I have several problems with this section.

(I) Making a subsection for a single comment on papal clothing gives undue emphasis and weight to a bit of trivia. "Vestments", it seems to me, may be the wrong word. Paravicini-Bagliani seems to be questioning the idea that popes began to wear everyday white regular attire when Pope Pius V, a Dominican, insisted on retaining his regular garments he wore as a Dominican. It is not challenged that popes (and indeed every cleric) wore white vestments during liturgical functions. Perhaps "Papal Attire" is a better fit for the context. At least, IMHO, the subsection head should be removed.

(II) The comment rests on a single report in a highly POV newspaper source, L'Osservatore romano, a subsidiary organ of the Vatican Communications dicastery (department, office). The second citation is to a blog, which is not permitted on Wikipedia, and which, in any case, is only a summary reference to what was in "Osservatore romano". (III) The "Osservatore romano" article seems to be the original research, or at least the original idea, of Paravicini-Bagliani. As such, it is unsupported by any scholarly opinion, certainly any other opinion in print. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to publish new and original theories, and certainly not ones which have not been submitted to testing and comment by leading authorities in the field. I quote from WP:FRINGE, under "Reliable sources": "Wikipedia policy prohibits original research. The no original research policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources."

I would draw attention to the portrait of Pope Calixtus III (Alfonso Borja) (1455–1458), which shows him in full pontifical vestments, wearing a white alb (Roman alb, rochet), with a black garment beneath it (not a white one). This is one bit of evidence that needs careful consideration before Paravicini-Bagliani's theory can be taken seriously, let alone given its own subsection in a Wikipedia article.

Perhaps, as an alternative to deletion (it is trivia, after all), the subsection could be transferred to a footnote, with the warning that it is an original opinion, unsupported by secondary or tertiary sources.

--Vicedomino (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I would support the deletion of the entire section. It appears to be a direct copy and past from here. Which would be a violation of WP:COPYPASTE. The section appears to have been added by an ip user in 2013. See edit
 * Because it is a copy and pasted original opinion, I see no reason it should be kept. It is a fairly minor part of the article in my opinion.

ThinkHat (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)