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.
Only the Armenian church recognizes Sylvester as a doctor of the church. Shouldn't this be a separate category? Student7 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. Many of the doctors (Basil the Great, for example) are recognized by several different churches, and a different category for each would overload the categories on their articles. However, it should be mentioned in the article which group considers him a Doctor of the Church, with a good citation. Gentgeen (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a folk legend that Pope Sylvester was an advocator of torturing Jews and antisemitism. That's sheer nonsense, it's just made up by stupid people who think 'EW! CHRISTIANS! GOYIM!' Should this be added? Siúnrá (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It is a strongly held belief in Israel, and is covered in the Hebrew Wikipedia article. I don't think it's relavent in this page. (Vaskafdt (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC))
Much of this article has been edited with an anti-Catholic slant, either from an Orthodox point of view or a Protestant one, without any citations. Given that the article makes substantial claims which contradict either generally accepted history or tradition, one would expect at least some tenuous attempt to cite statements claiming that Constantine created the "Pope" or that the Roman Catholic Church was created with the emperor's decree (the separation of the East and West, for that matter, is generally not dated until 1054). This article needs a serious clean up.126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
When did anyone deny that the Diocese of Rome was founded by Saint Peter? It's not a matter of creating the Bishop of Rome, only a matter of when the Diocese of Rome came to be considered primary. Anyone who denied that the Diocese of Rome was founded by Saint Peter was wrong, but when was such an edit ever made? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This topic has been relocated to the "Transition" Section on the Roman Catholic Church Talk Page, where it is more relevant.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I couldn't find anything to justify that Constantine decreed that Rome was the center of everything, etc. etc. So I deleted it. Seems like a bleed-over from the Donation of Constantine. After Constantine legalized the church, bishops suddently had a lot of authority - they were magistrates, for example, so the power was there. Can't find anything about the "single church." Nor a named decree in 314, which should be in Wikipedia if it were that important.
Having said that, Sylvester deliberately didn't attend the council of Nicea suggesting he was on a higher plane. Also, there are indications that the bishop of Rome was "first among equals" in the church for a long time. But that is a separate issue and was church inspired not Constantine-inspired. Student7 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The idea was that the transition from Early Christianity to Roman Catholicism proper occurred in 314. I got the idea of marking that transition then from this article: . While I disagree with the author's opinions about the Roman Catholic Church expressed near the end of the article, I can not argue with the fact that the non-opinion parts of the article have no less than 54 historical sources. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
"I can not argue with the fact that the non-opinion parts of the article have no less than 54 historical sources."? Well, I certainly can: it only has 54 footnotes (not "sources"). Not every footnote corresponds to a source. And they are not guaranteed to use the source correctly just because they exist. Anyway, even without checking the sources themselves there seem to be no footnotes that would support the existence of some sort of decree (looks like the author simply assumes that the Church changed significantly with election of Sylvester I and that's how the date is produced). Not even that: there seems to be nothing helping us to start the search for the decree in question. What was its name? The decree has to have some name, right?
Furthermore, the source you gave is not a reliable source. First of all, it is a question of history. Thus the author of any reliable source will probably be a historian (or at least an amateur historian). But in this case the author's qualifications are given only as "A Former Catholic Nun"... And the Web page in question seems to be a simple personal Web page, thus any formal fact checking process is unlikely.
In conclusion - the source given is not acceptable, the "fact" is doubtful at best and should not be included in the article without a significantly better source. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
According to Page 208 of The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures (3rd Edition) by Lynn Hunt et al. (Volume A to 1500), the Greek word "Pappas" and Latin "Papa" (which later gave rise to "Pope" in English) were used for various bishops prior to the start of the Christianization of the Empire, a transition that very much coincides with Sylvester's reign. From this time onward, the term was reserved solely for the Bishop of Rome, as it remains today within the Roman Catholic Church. (I specify "within the Roman Catholic Church" because there is 1 other denomination that has its own Papacy, the Coptic Orthodox Catholic Church.) Also in Hunt et al. shortly thereafter, the fact that the Diocese of Rome had been founded by Saint Peter received more emphasis at this time, and so all other bishops became subordinate to the Bishop of Rome from then onward. Even if practice lagged behind, Rome became theoretically the supreme archdiocese with the reigns of Sylvester I as Pope and Constantine I as Emperor, and the Christianization of Rome. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, what is supposed to be proved by that? Let's look at the material in question (added by edits , tagged by edit , mostly deleted by edit , finally removed by edit ). It speaks about some decree, talks about "[t]he transition from Early Christianity to the Roman Catholic Church proper"... Can anything like that be supported by mere terminological changes? No, of course not - and such conclusions most certainly cannot be made by any Wikipedian (that would be original research - and bad original research at that).
Or are you proposing something other than reinstating that material? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Collins may be a questionable source (that's the one by the former nun), but Hunt is much more reliable, and the text on Page 208 and shortly thereafter does imply the reigns of Sylvester and Constantine as the time of said Early Christian/Roman Catholic proper transition. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
"Imply"? That is, it does not really say so? In other words, we would have to take a couple of statements from the source (about terminology and emphasis) and reach the conclusion about "Early Christian/Roman Catholic proper transition"? That is exactly what is discussed in Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Thus it is completely inappropriate to add anything like this to the article. It might be possible to add a sentence saying that some (maybe "some Protestants", maybe giving an example) consider it to be so, but we would need a source that actually says that. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Imply/Say so...Hunt is quite clear that individual Dioceses were independent prior to that time. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but I'll retrieve an exact quotation next time I do. (The reason that this reply took so long is that I am in college, very busy, and not constantly on Wiki.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to make the table that shows Papal Styles but he should have one because he is a Saint. Also I don't know enough facts about him but if someone could write a section about him being a Saint.Etineskid (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This bishop of Rome was never called "pope" in his lifetime. Some neutral history might be in order.--Wetman (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
He was never called "saint" in his lifetime either! :) Student7 13:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)