Talk:Pope John XXIII

Moral theology
It would be a good idea if there could be an article called moral theology of John XXIII, which would be as detailed as the entry moral theology of John Paul I. ADM (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of Angelo
Why is this spelled with a circumflex over the "Â"?
 * Because nobody fixed it until I just did. Tb (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was added in these edits:, . Tb (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Biography
On the top part of the article it says that "Angelo Roncalli was the third child of thirteen born in an Italian village to sharecroppers."

However, in the Vatican website that gives a biography of him, it says,"Pope John XXIII was born Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli at Sotto il Monte, Italy, in the Diocese of Bergamo on 25 November 1881. He was the fourth in a family of 14."

He was not the third of thirteen children but instead the fourth of fourteen, according to the official website of the Vatican.

Dog on red wagon (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Dog on red wagon

Return Train Ticket to Venice?
I having trouble understanding why this is significant or what it proves. For him not to have made return travel arrangements in anticipation of being elected pope would have been highly unrealistic and presumptuous and would have been regarded as such if discovered.John Paul Parks (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Nuclear disarmament?
I didn't see anything in this article about the call for nuclear disarmament in Pacem in Terris. Any reason for that? --Nbauman (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because this is a general article about Pope John XXIII and not a detailed analysis of every document he wrote?John Paul Parks (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Aug. 28, 2013 change by me -- I left a comment incomplete
In explaining the change (I added "and number"), I noted already that there are other problems in the numbering of Popes called John. Left incomplete (because I hit "enter" too soon) was this: Roncalli's use of XXIII affirmed that the previous claimant who called himself John XXIII was an antipope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

October 11
I came across this article today, wondering why it was chosen as Pope John XXIII's feast day by Rome. The only seemingly significant time the date's mentioned is as the start of Vatican II, although saints' days are usually the anniversaries of the death date, but can be of the date of consecration or relics being found. Clearly, I'm not a poohbah to question the liturgical calendar. However, I did notice that Pope John was formally consecrated on November 4, after a (to me) confusing section which began about Pius X dying on October 9, and October 11 being Roncalli's last day in Venice. The bit about nonparticipation in the conclave threw me for it, which might actually be about the then-ineligible candidate whom John elevated to cardinalship early in his term (reign?), i.e. the future Pope Paul VI. IMHO, quite simply, the article needs work, and I don't have the time, nor resources to do it, sadly enough.Jweaver28 (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I won't change the above remark, but it would be more accurate to say "then-non-cardinal" instead of "then-ineligible"; that is Giovanni Battista Montini, who as you noted became Pope Paul VI (and I do recall there were at least rumors that John XXIII wanted Montini to succeed him and that Vatican Council II be continued, and these things did happen). Montini was eligible to be elected in 1958, but in practice chances of that were practically nil, because 1378 (now more than 630 years ago) is the latest time a non-cardinal was elected pope; that was Urban VI, who was eventually viewed as a disaster (and the Western Schism, not ended until 1417 when Martin V was elected, started). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To be absolutely technical about it, any Catholic male who is at least 7 years of age is eligible to be elected Pope, but as you point out, it has been more than 600 years since a non-cardinal was elected. Ascertaining consent outside the conclave would be difficult, to say the least.  If a non-cleric were elected, he would be ordained priest, consecrated bishop, and then proclaimed pope.John Paul Parks (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Cleaning up before April 27th
1. Thank you for the citation of the quote in the introduction for the "speech of the moon." I would like to clarify the date of the speech (October 11th, 1962), change "in the middle of the night" to "about 8 pm" [Jill Tyler-Bevilacqua in the recording at Veronica Scarisbrick, Vatican Radio, October 16, 2012], and include in the quote, "All the world is represented here tonight. It could even be said that even the moon hastens close tonight,..." [Tony Rossi, "The Holy Journey of Two Popes: John XXIII and John Paul II" (March 25, 2014).].

2. Since this is in the introduction, I wondered if all this expansion would be better served further down in the article under "Calling the Council."

3. Perhaps something of his "ordinary-ness" could be highlighted in the introduction and the impromptu, informal way of addressing the people as characterized in the "speech to the moon" could be included.

4. I thought the story Rosminian Father John Charles-Roux's story of Roncalli's time in Paris as Apostolic nuncio in the late 1940's preparing a special meal for those opposed to the Catholic church there in Paris quite a bridge-builder and perhaps fitting for the introduction if not fleshed out in the "Nuncio" section below [in Veronica Scarisbrick's recording at Vatican News reference cited above].

5. The text that Tony Rossi uses in his blog at patheos.com of the pope's speech of the moon seems a bit akward ("It could even be said that even the moon hastens close tonight,..."), but I cannot verify the Italian. I have asked Tony to help with edits and missing references before April 27th, 2014.

6. Thank you again to all who are working on this article.

7. PS  Is there any reason his image and title block are repeated at the beginning of the section, "Vatican II:  The first session"? All this material is at the beginning of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jplvnv (talk • contribs) 09:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As to point #7, the reason for the repeat is the use of Infobox saint. However, the Infobox Christian leader adequately covers all the fields that Infobox saint does and more, so I really see little need to have it repeated. It can probably be safely deleted without any loss. Elizium23 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent intros among popes who are also saints
If you look at the results of the following search:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Pope+Saint+&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search

you will see that some begin with "Pope Saint Name Number" and others begin with "Pope Name Number". In all cases I checked, "Pope Saint Name Number" is used at the top of the infobox.

Perhaps there should be some consistency? 68.165.77.30 (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Until roughly 1500 most of Europe was Catholic, so in England and countries with a large English heritage (most of the English-speaking world, except India) "Saint" is fairly uncontroversial for these older cases, and appropriate for English-language Wikipedia. But from about 1600 people called Saints by the Catholic Church are not so recognised by other religions. So I would suggest that "Saint" is not appropriate for titles and honorifics of post-1600 people (I don't know exactly when the cutoff should be). This is independent of, and additional to, WP:NCCL and MOS:HONORIFIC. For example, I think everybody must agree that John XXIII obviously occupied the position of bishop of Rome, aka Pope; but the majority of people in the world do not consider him a saint. Pol098 (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is kind of a bold and outlandish claim. Are you able to cite some sort of Wikipedia policy on this, or is this based in your personal opinion? Elizium23 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, no policy as such; but in practice there seems to be little objection to using "Saint" for people who lived long ago; MOS:HONORIFIC and MOS:SAINTS are not applied rigidly in such cases, I think. The 16th-century cutoff and my reasoning are certainly not policy, and may well not match the de-facto consensus; I'm trying to find out what the situation is and suggest that it be followed rather than strict application of guidelines. I've just looked at a very few articles at random, and there seems to have been no objection to "Wilfrid ... was an English bishop and saint", "Saint Pancras" in the article Pancras of Rome, Saint Helena, etc. Pol098 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but isn't this a case of WP:COMMONNAME? The average English-speaker is more likely to recognize the designation "Saint Francis" rather than "Francis Bernadone", and therefore by COMMONNAME, "Saint Francis" is preferable, regardless of whether the reader personally believes Francis to be among the Blessed.  I suspect that this applies also to St. Peter, St. Augustine, etc.  On the other hand, even Catholics are more likely to say "Pope John Paul II" than "Pope St. John Paul II".  Of course, that might change over time, but that's not a problem -- COMMONNAME is something that does change over time. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 17:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "isn't this a case of WP:COMMONNAME?" Certainly for saints up to at least the middle ages; in Europe (specifically in England), sainthood declared by the (only) Church was universally accepted. That's the basis for my argument that MOS:HONORIFIC and WP:NCCL shouldn't be applied too rigorously to people from the middle ages or earlier. You (Lawrence King) have put a guideline to this, COMMONNAME, better than simple voluntary forbearance. Re modern canonisations: they're by the Catholic Church in a diverse world; even if (and when) all Catholics always say "Pope Saint John Paul II", it's unlikely that non-Catholics will to any great extent, so it can be said in Wikipedia where relevant that a person is recognised as a saint, or "known as Saint Pope Z" by the Catholic Church, but Saint shouldn't be a routine honorific. In other words WP:COMMONNAME is unlikely to apply. We're saying basically the same thing. I tend to say things like "canonised after his death by the Catholic Church" as not every non-Catholic may realise that it's customary in Catholicism not to canonise living people (living saints are recognised in other cases), but there have been objections to that. Pol098 (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This argument is bizarrely akin to saying that since a doctor is given his degree from an accredited school and his medical license from the board that only that school and board have the right to call him "Doctor". This is obviously not true. Wikipedia respects the honorifics duly granted to people by reputable organizations, particularly those which they belong(ed) to. The Pope does not have rightful leadership over non-Catholics, and there are sedevacantists who deny that he is validly elected, will we strip him of the honorific "Pope" as well? No, it is applied to all the men who have rightfully earned that title. Likewise, a priest in the Anglican Church is not recognized by anyone else as "Reverend", particularly Catholics who hold that Anglican orders are invalid. However, even Catholics and Wikipedia refer to an Anglican priest as Reverend, out of respect for the title and organization which bestowed it. Now, if you want to argue from WP:HONORIFIC about reduction of honorific titles altogether in articles, that is a valid position. By that logic we should also remove "Pope" from such mentions as those in List of canonically crowned images. But your argument especially focusing on the title of "Saint" and only in regards to modern usage does not hold any water. Furthermore I suggest that this backwater talk page is the wrong place to hold such a discussion. If you expect to achieve WP:CONSENSUS for your position then you are going to need to expose it on WT:CATHOLIC or Talk:Pope, i.e. something frequented by a large number of commenters. Otherwise you can expect to keep meeting reverts. Elizium23 (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Added Navbox, Cath. saints; added Portal, Christianity
Greetings, Today I added the navbox template Catholic saints which includes Pope John XXIII article. I also added the portal for Christianity into the SA section. I did not include portals for Catholicism, Pope, or Saints because these are already included in the article's Navbox templates (in the below = parameter). This is per MOS/Layout, See_also_section which states that As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Added portals: Biography, History
Today, I added these two portals since they relate to the article being a Bio. and of a historical figure. JoeHebda (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Pope John XXIII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130211203429/http://spectator.org:80/archives/2006/08/18/hitlers-pope/print to http://spectator.org/archives/2006/08/18/hitlers-pope/print

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's working.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pope John XXIII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407075746/http://nationalcatholic.org.uk/2013/07/05/canonisation-of-blessed-john-paul-ii-and-blessed-john-xxiii/ to http://nationalcatholic.org.uk/2013/07/05/canonisation-of-blessed-john-paul-ii-and-blessed-john-xxiii/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pope John XXIII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20050422221459/http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/SaintOfDay/default.asp?id=1165 to http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/SaintOfDay/default.asp?id=1165

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Young Pope John XXIII.jpg

What's this about his robes when he was elected?
I find "Of the three cassocks prepared for whomever the new pope was, even the largest was not enough to fit his five-foot-two, 200-plus-pound frame, .." Check that out, because I recall reading the tailor saying that the new Pope John XXIII must have been given the medium size, and that the large size should have fit because it was made according to Roncalli's measurements. Furthermore, I read that an aide had picked up the wrong robes, and that the robes had to be split down the back, so that the first public appearance of John XXIII had to be front view only. Carlm0404 (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , worthless WP:UNDUE trivia. It should be removed entirely. Elizium23 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment about that first consistory
I see "In John XXIII's first consistory on 15 December of that same year, Montini was created a cardinal and would become John XXIII's successor in 1963, taking the name of Paul VI.`

OK, and I will add that it was the first to go beyond the then-traditional limit of 70 cardinals. I also have read that another surprise was the soonness with which this consistory was announced. Carlm0404 (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , whom did it surprise? Elizium23 (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

(Annoyed): I don't know, but you see it was announced within 2 weeks of his being elected. I put in the remark about expansion beyond 70 members without calling it a surprise; his choice of papal name had been a surprise, too. Carlm0404 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding protection to John XXIII page and Popes that succeeded him.
I suggest adding extra protection to the page about John XXIII and Popes that came after him. I suggest this protection because members of extreme groups may attempt to edit the pages in order to portray John XXIII and his successors as "illegitimate popes". John XXIII and his successors were validly elected and are not illegitimate. Jjfun3695 (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The validity of a Pope is a matter of faith...
 * Has there been incidence of vandalism on the page? If not, I don't see why the pages need protection. What are these extreme groups? 172.58.217.60 (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)