Talk:List of popes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject European Microstates / Vatican City (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Vatican City (marked as Top-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as High-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.
Former featured list List of popes is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.

Numbering of Popes[edit]

If Pope-Elect Stephen is not officially counted as a pope, then shouldn't the numbering skip him? As is, Zachary is numbered 90, and Pope-Elect Stephen as 91, and Stephen II as 92. Shouldn't Pope-Elect Stephen be skipped in the counting and Stephen II be counted as 91, with all subsequent popes numbered accordingly? XinaNicole (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Recently an IP editor went through and added the numbering. I am not real sure what they are numbering. No matter what the numbering is wrong for the reason you list. The question is what should the numbering be? Should it be the number of Popes or the number of Pontificates? Since due to Benedict IX the number is off by two between each. This is the reason that the numbers weren't included until that editor added them. I am also not sure the importance of the numbering as related to the numbering in each century. I am not sure what that "buys" us.Marauder40 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the century numbering seemed weird to me. Is there a general precedence for other offices where a person holds non-consecutive terms? I know with the US Presidents, Cleveland is counted as 22nd and 24th. But I don't know if that's an American idiosyncrasy or if others do the same.
Okay, I've been looking around at other lists, and it looks like it's common to count non-consecutive periods of rule with different numbers. So, I'll edit it to count Pontificates and skipping Pope-Elect Stephen XinaNicole (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, something is strange. This page lists Benedict as the 265th, but the Catholic Encylopedia online lists him as 266th [1] Something strange is going on ... XinaNicole (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Found it! And error in numbering with 89 repeated XinaNicole (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
That list has Benedict IX listed 3 times and it has Stephen II listed and counted, which he shouldn't be.Marauder40 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
According to the intro, Benedict XVI is officially 265th, so that indicates that Benedict IX's repeat counting is correct. I was confused because taking out Stephen would've reduced Benedict's number to 264, but now I see where the error was XinaNicole (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes it can be confusing. I know the line that says "That list is the one given here; it lists 263 men serving 265 pontificates (periods of Papal office), if Pope-elect Stephen is excluded (see below)." Was accurate because I was the one that put a different version of the same line in with the same numbers. When I originally put it in, it was sourced to a good source and I remember looking things up on the Vatican site to verify it. I guess in all the updates someone removed the source. The source was based on an article talking about the fact that the Vatican had just updated its latest listing of the Popes. The source was right before Pope JPII died and Benedict was elected and placed the numbering at 262 and 264 at the time. Good luck on updating all the tables, if you are going to do that. I did it once and was pretty cross-eyed at the end. Marauder40 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, teh numbering was mostly correct. The only errors were the repetition of 89 and counting Stephen, which two errors canceled out, so I only had to change a few numbers. I thought of removing the century numbers, too, but that was too much XinaNicole (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the numbering should necesssary count popes not pontificates. Now average reader thinks that Francis is the 266th pope what is falseness. He is 264th pope. In the article Pope Francis the same mistake is found. --Janezdrilc (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Joan[edit]

An IP editor keeps trying to add Pope Joan to the list. First off the Pope Joan page itself lists her as a legend. Second, the page lists those people that have been officially called a Pope by the Catholic church. She isn't one. Please refrain from readding without consensus.Marauder40 (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ip probably confused her with this claimed pope. In any case, not right. History2007 (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Funny. Thanks for the help.Marauder40 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sub-numbers[edit]

What's with the sub-numbering, which I've worked out shows the number within each century? E.g. John Paul II is 264/8, being the 264th pope overall, but the 8th whose papacy started in the the 20th century. This is unnecessary, confusing, unorthodox, inappropriate, and is never explained anywhere. Readers will have to work it out for themselves, as I did, but it shouldn't be there at all, imo. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Numbering popes as "The nth pope of his century" is irrelevant, confusing, and, to my knowledge, not done by anybody else. This was done by the IP editor who added all the numberings last January. I'll probably go ahead and remove them, if nobody speaks up.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think numbering by century adds anything. While it is a bit off the subject, I'd like to raise the issue of organizing by centuries. Would it be better to employ more organic groupings that would break the list into manageably sized logical series (e.g. Roman Empire, Western Empire, Great Schism, Avignon Papacy, etc.)?Novangelis (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd suppport that idea. Are those periods well defined? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Such a division exists in History of the papacy. A preliminary scan shows adequate sources, often in the articles on the periods, but I haven't done a close inspection. I know I can't get around to it until at least next week.Novangelis (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the sub-numbering. I have no real objection to dividing the list by era instead of century, except that I hate to perpetuate the notion that, you know, the middle ages just came to an end right in 1417, and they all had an inauguration party for the next era.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Many Missing References[edit]

In the note section there is a huge lack of references. Please find sources for the various claims, well known or not. Repllyturns (talk)

While a good idea, they have to be reliable sources and the references have to say what is contained in the source. Reliability does not get transferred by proximity. Although one newspaper article about a controversial documentary might be a reliable source if it actually said what was in the edit, stringing it together with a highly dubious blog and some random websites to reach a global conclusion is synthesis.Novangelis (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Please explain how the websites are "random" and what would not qualify as "random". Does Wikipedia have a policy which points out what is considered "random" stringing together of websites? And concerning a "highly dubious" blog, in what way? The blog owner cites himself as a Calvinist or Calvinistic Christian, therefore a protestant, and gives his rebuttal to Catholics who give their reasons as to why they consider Peter the first Pope. As such his replies qualify as a perspective from a Protestant who is debating their claims. It's also a commonly known fact (note the "known for" comment in this article without a reference to back that comment up) that all Protestants, not talking about nominal ones, deny that Peter was the first Pope. The websites give perspectives from various Protestants, their reasonings as to why.Repllyturns (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC).
Stringing together reliable sources and reaching a conclusion that is not found in any of the sources would be synthesis. Collecting a few websites, probably based on Google ranking (probably not truly random, but far more haphazard than systematic, thus random) that support a general idea, then using the collection as evidence of a consensus is obvious original research. Someone, just as easily, could collect multiple websites expressing a minority position. Of course, this begs the question of the sources qualifying as reliable. Justifying the laughable blog because "[t]he blog owner cites himself as a..." is the antithesis of reliable; see WP:Verifiability.
Doctrinal and scholarly minutia do not belong on this page; the notes are a synopsis. Appropriate qualifiers (e.g. "Recognized...by the Catholic Church") are present. Arguing details in an overview instead of the main page is a form of "coatracking", using a page to advance a position that is not in the scope of the page (off-topic or undue weight). Details of the scholarly and doctrinal debates should be focused on Saint Peter#Connection to Rome without bloating the section relative to the article. Speaking of off-topic, regarding the issue of "missing" references, the article seems adequately sourced, but more sources and inline citations would both be useful and appropriate. Novangelis (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This page has been semi-protected for a week[edit]

Padlock-silver-slash.svg
Policy shortcuts:

This page has been semi-protected for a week. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed.

Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. If the page in question and its talk page are both protected please make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit instead. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. In case you wish clarifications, kindly contact me directly on my talk page. Thanks.Wifione Message 13:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Was Jesus Pope[edit]

This edit raises a fascinating and imaginative question, Was Jesus the first Pope?, but the answer is most certainly No. Jesus was the first head of the Church, but is considered by the Church to still be its head. His position is unchanged, and the Pope has always been his deputy at best. Andrewa (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

On Leo IX and the Great Schism[edit]

In the section, dedicated to Pope Leo IX, it says that 'In 1054, Leo IX and Patriarch of Constantinople Michael I Cerularius excommunicated each other, beginning the still-existing East–West Schism'. This is incorrect. It was Leo IX's legate - cardinal Humbert, who excommunicated Cerularios and was, in turn, subject to a counter-excommunication by the Patriarch. This actually happened in June 1054, two months after the death of Leo IX.

I propose changing the quoted phrase to something like 'In June 1054 (two months after the pope's death) Leo IX's legate - cardinal Humbert and the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael I Cerularius excommunicated each other, beginning the still-existing East–West Schism'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.176.10.109 (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing/citing[edit]

I don't know how the list was initially constructed, but would it be appropriate to place a catch-all footnote on the table (probably at the top of the "Notes" column) to the effect that "unless otherwise specified, details are from the entry for the named Pope in Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)"? If this is actually the source, it should solve citation without footnote bloat, the idea being to make it easy to verify the source of claims. Anything controversial should have a detailed footnote.Novangelis (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Sixtuspope3.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Sixtuspope3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 24 March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sixtuspope3.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI[edit]

Under 'notes' it now reads: "First Pope to have been conscripted into the Hitler Youth", and this is relevant because....?

Unless somebody can justify this, I'm removing it. -- Peter Talk to me 02:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The above message was posted not by User:Peter, but by User:Hazhk
The person that added originally, added it back again (and I have reverted it.) I agree this is not relevant to this list. It is a small fact about the early history of the person, long before they became Pope. In the history of the Papacy, it is a extremely minor fact. It doesn't really show how he is any different from previous Popes. It is the type of fact that only belongs in the article about the Pope. Marauder40 (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI: relevant to this list?[edit]

That the current Pope's resignation is the first in 600 years is surely to be a part of his own article. However, I was wondering if it would be relevant to add a column to this list giving the reason each ceased to be Pope: died, murdered, resigned, removed, etc?

I have no idea what the actual history is. If 99% of the popes died natural deaths in office then it's probably best to put it in the Notes column for those who didn't. But, if there was a wide variety of means of leaving, and it had some bearing on the times the pope lived in, then it seems like a new column would be useful. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

When (and if) the resignation happens as scheduled, we will make appropriate notations. The last resignation (see List of popes#15th century) offers one approach. Adding a brief comment to the end of office in the "Pontificate" column, or just those not dying, in office might be another approach which would cause too much table growth or empty space. Now would be a good time to readdress column widths, formatting and content.Novangelis (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
No crystal ball needed. He declared he renounced the papacy, not will renounce. The 28th is when the position becomes vacant, and in the meantime (according to him) Jesus himself is in charge. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly having italics for 'dates of leaving office' and plain for 'actual death dates' would cover the presently few occasions when this is an issue.

I presume the lightning strike on the Vatican as Benedict made his announcement was not 'Saint Malachy being annoyed.' :) 80.254.147.68 (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think noting "Quit" (or similar) in parentheses would be sufficient. Not sure a death date would be relevant to a List of popes in cases where the guy dying is no longer a pope. In the notes column, perhaps. And I presume the lightning was Jesus, literally taking over operations per Benedict's final command. But I realize mainstream sources are against me there, as they are about the whole "still the Pope for now" thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Is Jesus the Interim Pope?[edit]

Yes, that sounds like a stupid question. But in his resignation speech, Ratzinger said: And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff.

Now, if he's infallible he has papal supremacy, this must mean Jesus is officially (let's not get into actualities) running the Church until Mary helps the Cardinals pick a human (possibly named Peter). Wouldn't this make Him at least an Interim Pope? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And, if so, since Ratzinger said "And now...", does this mean he is currently not the Pope, and that Jesus is in charge until the vacancy on February 28? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless and until you can explain how a dead person can hold any sort of office, then no; Jesus is not the Pope.Vicorious (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, Jesus isn't dead, there's that resurrection thing. KTC (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
He's been resurrected? Wow, that's quite some claim. Can you prove it?Vicorious (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Can't prove it's true, but there's a lot of evidence that the Church believes (at least teaches) that Jesus ascended to Heaven and lives eternally at the right hand of God. See Session of Christ. So when the Pope talks about Jesus, it's reasonable to assume he's talking about him as an actual eternal human-like being with real capabilities. It's not as reasonable to assume Jesus filled the position in the form of a lightning bolt, but also theoretically possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
No, no and just no. Please stop coming up with statements that has no basis on Catholic theology. KTC (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa and whoa. This has nothing to do with Catholic theology, just a matter of what Ratzinger said and what he meant. Taken literally, he renounced the papacy, and "entrusted care" to Jesus (who is considered a sentient being by most Popes, not some dead guy) until February 28. But taken in a general "Jesus cares for us all, anyway" way, he's still just regular Jesus. Secondary sources are misinterpreting the address, I think, but they're what we base Wikipedia on, so I can't really complain. We'll see how things play out in the coming weeks, may become clearer in the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
lol What a bizarre thread! Actually the College of Cardinals takes the pope's place during the sede vacante, although only insofar as the day to day running of the Church is concerned.Gazzster (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I wrote this under the assumption that Ratzinger had resigned, effective immediately, and literally entrusted the Church to Jesus till the 28th, when the College would take over. But I've since been shown a Cardinal explicitly stating Ratzinger is still the Pope, and had apparently worded the vacancy part of his speech so vaguely for some other reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
Here's the link to sede vacante. From that link, After the death or resignation of a pope the Holy See becomes sede vacante. In this case the particular church is the Diocese of Rome and the "vacant seat" is the cathedra of Saint John Lateran, the cathedral church of the bishop of Rome. During this period, the Holy See is administered by a regency of the College of Cardinals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RLent (talkcontribs) 22:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The "next" is always the "first" after the first[edit]

This is one of the dumbest line I have read here - "First German pope since Germanic Pope Adrian VI." Eh? So, if the next pope is Germanic again, then that would be the first German pope, since Pope Benedict XVI?!? So... Pretty much everyone, all the time are the first! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.94.161 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel the same about Constantine being the "last" Pope to visit Greece, until John Paul II. I've left that alone, but removed the "first German" line from Benedict, also considering that Adrian VI wasn't German, but Dutch. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:43, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
I think the note on visiting Greece is relevant because it illustrates the history of the Catholic/Orthodox schism Harachel22 (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't so much illustrate it as it hints at it in a way that only those familiar with the schism would pick up on. Perhaps the note should mention/Wikilink the schism, to show the significance. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:39, February 14, 2013 (UTC) 14:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Napoleon wasn't pope, however...[edit]

I added the six month napoleonic interregnum and moved Pius VII from the 18th century to the 19th. The fact that P7 was elected in 1800, and the universe in which popes reigned was irrepairebly changed, I figured it would make more sense.Ericl (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal names of the popes[edit]

Among the popes of the first millenium there seems to be a mix of Latin, Greek and Italian names; I propose to cancel dubious personal names leaving only those with good sources.--Carnby (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: Sources of portraits of ancient figures. Sorry I couldn't find the discussion for a policy on this. Many images are created long after the subject is deceased and are often romanticized in some way. There are school age kids that look at these pictures and believe they were posed-for portraits. If there is a policy page on this could someone please direct me, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkb100100 (talkcontribs) 18:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

New Pope[edit]

Hey, could one of you update the table for the new Pope that was elected today? I don't know how to use tables. Thx. XndrK (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone tried, but made a mess with all the text after the table. I will not try to fix (would make a bigger mess). Someone please? 186.215.237.218 (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Does this page need protecting also?[edit]

Was wondering if this List Article on Pope's needs some sort of minor protection, maybe a short term protection? Just Wondering. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. If it's just a rush to be the first to edit, that will subside on its own. If any actual issues arise, a cooling off period might be in order, but so far I do not see the need. I will make a request should the need arise.Novangelis (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-European popes[edit]

Francis I isn't the first non-European pope. Three African popes are listed and there are a number from Syria (which is part of the Middle East and Asia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.249.77.3 (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest "first Pope from the Western Hemisphere" or, alternately, "the Americas".Novangelis (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Further, the number of non-European popes is off, if you count Syrian popes among them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.249.77.3 (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis was not born in Europe, but he actually is a citizen of a European state (Italy, which makes him also a E. U. citizen), so calling Pope Francis a "non-European Pope" is incorrect. He is an American and America-born Pope, but he's also a European and Italian Pope. 11:04, 27-03-2013 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.92.196 (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

He might indeed be an Italian national (he does carry an European passport), but he is Latin American. Born and raised Argentinian; culturally, also Argentinian; Archbishop of Argentina's largest diocese. In Latin America, heritage is important to one's own identity, but nobody cares where other people's family come from. You are born in Latin America, you are raised in Latin America, you speak Spanish (in this case with Argentinian accent, not italian accent). You are Latin American. In Pope Francis case, he is also the first Pope to come from a non-European diocese since the Middle Ages. He comes from a Latin American diocese. Hence, he is the first "non-European" Pope in over many centuries.--Coquidragon (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Arms[edit]

I think it is improper to use Francis's coat of arms from when he was a cardinal. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Concur. There is no need for a filler. The banner on the balcony was blank for a reason.Novangelis (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Francis, Francis I, Francis Primus?[edit]

Currently the Vatican Web page just says, "HABEMVS PAPAM FRANCISCUM", until something official comes out I believe that is the only thing we have to go by other then that they only said "Franciscum" during the official announcement. The I and Primus should be left off. Also all the press releases on the Vatican web-page only say "Francis" in the respective languages. Marauder40 (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The only pope to use the term "Primo"(I) was John Paul the First. Look what happened to himEricl (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Nope. John Paul I did not use the "I" designation. That was only used after his death and John Paul II became pope. The latest "Primus" before John Paul I was Marinus I over a thousand years ago. Cresix (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)



[2] - Banner: "HABEMUS PAPAM: FRANCISCUS I Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiate Cardinalem Bergoglio" JohnArmagh (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
that link does not show an I it shows an exclamation point.Marauder40 (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
But what is an exclamation point, if not a capitalized "1"? And aren't all the other characters capitalized? Seriously though, no. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
No an exclamation point is not just a capital "1", it is a punctuation mark "!". It doesn't matter the Vatican has verified that it is just Pope Francis without the "1".Marauder40 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
At the time I posted to this page the banner actually said "FRANCISCUS I" - the Roman numeral "I" not an exclamation mark. JohnArmagh (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear user Cresix, you are totally wrong. John Paul I himself certainly used the number "I". He was presented as "John Paul I" the day he was proclaimed and his signature has always been "Ioannes Paulus PP. I". You can easily find his signature in the internet. 11:11, 27-03-2013 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.92.196 (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"Renounce"?[edit]

The last Pope did not "renounce" the Papacy, he resigned. 24.23.163.55 (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

See the definition of "renounce". He gave up the papacy and resigned in a formal declaration. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
According to the Vatican, the official terminology is "resign," not "renounce" (nor, as I had originally used in conversation, "abdicate"). Jimpoz (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but we're Wikipedia, not The Vatican. "Resign" would also be fine, but we're under no obligation to use the exact words as any official source, for any topic (unless we're quoting it, of course). As long as the meaning is the same, paraphrasing is fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Two issues[edit]

  1. The note for Francis says "First to adopt a new, unused and non-composed regnal name since Lando (913–914)." Lando did not adopt a regnal name. With very few of exceptions, choosing a regnal name was simply not done before the eleventh century; thus Lando, like every pope without a numeral as well as every pope now called "the First" except John Paul I, reigned under his own name. So it should just say for Francis, "First to adopt a new, unused and non-composed regnal name."
  2. "Blessed" is abbreviated in the list as Bd. Every time I've ever seen Blessed abbreviated it was as Bl. Can we get a ruling?

Jimpoz (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No clue about the "blessed" thing, but for the first, we could probably go without "unused", however else we word it. "New" basically says this. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Religious Orders[edit]

I have moved the religious orders abbrev from the Papal Name column into the Personal Name column, since membership in religious orders ceases upon election to the papacy it is more appropriate there. Sg647112c (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 March 2013[edit]

Pleas change the notes section for Gregory III from being the last Pope born outside of Europe to this date to being the last Pope born outside of Europe until Pope Francis I, due to the election of Argentinian born Francis I. 66.167.133.166 (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Already done. Seems like somebody already took care of it.  — daranzt ] 03:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Francis's motto[edit]

This page translates his motto differently than the Pope Francis article. I'm not sure which one is correct, but obviously one (or maybe both) needs to be changed. Tad Lincoln (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, there will be an official translation. Since the context in the original Bede quote may not be identical to the use as a motto, there is limited ability to generate an exact translation. Since there are so many possible translations and there is the possibility that the episcopal motto will not be the official papal motto (and the same applies to the coat of arms), frequent changes are all opportunities to get it wrong. When the dust settles (see WP:RECENTISM), this page and the article should reach agreement based on the same high-quality (ideally official) source.Novangelis (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J.[edit]

I have a problem with the acronym S.J. because I believed that you have to leave the Society of Jesus when you become a bishop. This would mean Pope Francis indeed left the Society of Jesus in 1992. Hektor (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Luis Ladaria Ferrer is an archbishop and has the S.J. Anything you could share saying a bishop has to go? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
Technically, all religious bishops, and hence popes, leave their religious orders as they become bishops. A bishop cannot have vow of obedience to a religious superior. A bishop cannot have vow of poverty, as with the Bishopric comes ownership of goods. Without these two vows, a person is no longer a religious. Now, regardless of technicalities, they keep the spirituality of their respective orders. As such, Pope Francis is still a Jesuit, as all religious popes remained affiliated to their orders. Most, if not all, Jesuit Bishops, when they retire, they usually do so to a Jesuit community and/or infirmary. Pope Francis is still an S. J., just as Archbishop Bergoglio was still an S. J., if only nominally.--Coquidragon (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I found Jesuit cardinal. Not sourced to anything, but a few more examples. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:26, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Dear Coquidragon, your personal views are very personal and certainly not the position of the Church. "Technically, all religious bishops, and hence popes, leave their religious orders as they become bishops." They only leave their monasteries, but certainly remain members of their orders. 11:19, 27-03-2013 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.92.196 (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I am very happy that the Pope is a Jesuit. As to the question at hand, I can quote canon law that says religious bishops are member of their institutes, but that also say they only owe obedience to the Pope. Technically, by Canon Law, the Pope is still a Jesuit. Then, I can quote the constitutions/Rules of several orders, where its members, have a vow of obedience to the Superior General. Since the Pope owes no obediences to Father General (as per Canon law), technically, under the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus (in this case), the Pope is not a Jesuit, in as much as he has lost his active voice in the Order. He is canonically (and traditionally) a Jesuit, but also, technically, he is not (not an active Jesuit). The "They only leave their monasteries" is misinformed (since Jesuits do not live in monasteries to start with), and although technically, he is still a "member of the order," for practical matters, he is not. Now, I must say, as Bishop, Pope Francis continued (in his right) to use the acronym S. J. and continued to live (as per his gestures) a very Jesuitical life. His name also continued to appear in the catalogs of the Society of Jesus. So, as you can see, canonically, this question enters areas of diverse interpretations. Hence the why, originally, I said, "technically." Should I have better said "he is a "pasive-voice" Jesuit? Again, I am very happy that the Pope is a Jesuit. My answer was responding to the first comment, in as much as it was partially correct.--Coquidragon (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer to my initial question, which is very enlighting. Hektor (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Intervals between Popes[edit]

According to the dates in this list, there are a number periods of several months each during which there was no Pope, presumably because of its taking time to decide on a new one. (For example: 22 September 1774 – 15 February 1775 or 6 February 1740 – 17 August 1740.) Given this, why is the period 29 August 1799 – 14 March 1800 specially highlighted as if it was something unique? 81.159.104.199 (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The default has been to only list those intervals where the amount of time between Popes has been unusually long. As an example there was no reason to list the period between the last two Popes. In today's world a period of a couple days is normal. In older times a couple months was normal. The listed periods are longer then the customary time.Marauder40 (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Did you not look at my examples? My examples show that there were other lengthy intervals (of several months) in the same era. For example, 6 February 1740 – 17 August 1740 is almost exactly the same length as the highlighted interval. Why isn't that highlighted? 81.159.104.199 (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes I looked at your examples. I was giving the reasoning behind most of the interregnum periods listing. Yes this is the shortest period that is specifically listed as an interregnum. IMHO, six months would border on being listed, but if you look at the explanation itself for that period it gives "unique" reasons. If they are "unique" enough for notability reasons that is up to consensus to determine. If the reasons behind other same length periods is that it just took time, they may not be notable enough, whereas this one had other reasons. All you have to do is get consensus for a change. I personally don't care if it is delisted, but would care if all of a sudden a lot more periods were listed. Marauder40 (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know the best answer. The current layout does kind of give the impression that other gaps will not be months long, whereas in fact there are several unhighlighted instances of months-long delays. On the other hand, there has to be a cutoff somewhere (we wouldn't want every inter-Pope period, however short, to have its own separate row). 86.160.213.213 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Expression[edit]

Someone needs to rethink some of the expression here. Leaving out words doesn't make for clarity. What does "traditionally martyred" mean? Does that mean that the person was crucified, or killed in some other way that one might describe as "traditional"?

What the writer presumably means is "traditionally believed to have been martyred" or just plain "believed to have been martyred". It must be made clear that the "traditionally" pertains to an accepted belief, not to a mode of death. There are a number of uses of this expression and they all need fixing. Amandajm (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sedevacantism[edit]

I am quite old now, not religious, but always having an interest in religions, especially the fringes. However, I have never before come across Sedevacantism until an anonymous editor changed this article to cut out all the popes since Pius XII, or even Pius X. It seems to me that a list of popes should mention the fact that there are people who think that there has not been a legitimate pope since then. and that the list stops there. Myrvin (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A note perhaps. Myrvin (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Disputed Vatican II Popes[edit]

The validity of Popes after Pius XII are disputed by many in the Church. Perhaps, even if we do not delete their entries, we could add a note along the lines of "Disputed by Sedevacantists." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.115.0 (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How many is "many in the Church"? And how much level of dispute must their be to warrant a note in such an article? Some people disputed the election of Barack Obama as US President(and George W Bush in 2000), does that mean he gets an asterisk next to his entry at List of Presidents of the United States? 331dot (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the number of sedevacantists is relatively miniscule. They are hardly a serious challenge to the historicity of those popes. And even if they were, how many popes would they exclude? They cannot agree amongst themselves.Some would keep John, but exclude his successors, and some would even exclude Pius XII. And if certain popes were to be noted as disputed, should we insert the names of claimants such as 'Linus II', 'Pius XIII', or even Pope 'Michael I', elected by his family? Or perhaps Siri, the Archbishop of Genoa, who some claimed was elected twice, in place of John Paul I and John Paul II?Gazzster (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)