Talk:Pope Leo I

---

Pope??

He was a Patriarch of the Roman church, that was allied to Constantinople.

There was no seperate "Roman" "Catholic" Church ( Western Christianity ) until much later.

first pope?

First pope? This question needs clarification. While the official Roman Catholic position is that St. Peter was the first pope, I also thought that there were other bishops termed "popes" in the first few centuries before Leo I (I found at least 43 of them in a quick search). So clarification is needed on those who claim Leo as the "first Pope." Is he the "first pope" in the modern sense of the Papacy? Is he the first one who referred to himself with the title? Or some other bit of info? It would help explain the "first" distinction with some sources that make and support this claim.

---

User:205.188.116.138 put in this unwikified version.

Good grief. The article doesn't claim that he was the first pope; it says he was the first pope to be named "the great" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.32.129 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

leo the great

Pope Sixtus III died, i wonder why? (August 11, 540), and Leo was unanimously elected by the people to succeed him. On September 29 he entered upon a pontificate which was to be epoch-making for the centralization of the government of the Church.

Manicheans fleeing before the Vandals had come to Rome in 439 and secretly organized there; Leo learned of this around 443, and proceeded against them by holding a public debate with their representatives, burning their books, and warning the Roman Christians against them. His efforts led to the edict of Valentinian III against them (June 19, 445).

Feeling that his dominant idea of the Roman universal monarchy was threatened, Leo appealed to the civil power for support, and obtained from Valentinian III the famous decree of June 6, 445, which recognized the primacy of the bishop of Rome based on the merits of Peter, the dignity of the city, and the Nicene Creed (in their interpolated form); ordained that any opposition to his rulings, which were to have the force of law, should be treated as treason; and provided for the forcible extradition by provincial governors of anyone who refused to answer a summons to Rome.

The approaching collapse of the Western Empire gave Leo a further opportunity to appear as the representative of lawful authority. When Attila invaded Italy in 452 and threatened Rome, it was Leo who, with two high civil functionaries, went to meet him, and so impressed him that he withdrew -- at least according to Prosper of Aquitaine,

I cannot believe that this article on "Leo I" does not consider him "Leo the Great." Proof: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm

restore

The previous, more detailed, version is being restored. May merge the two versions later .... feel free to jump in !  :-)

Atilla the Hun

Just want to add my 2 cents. The Atilla The Hun story is not historically proven. It's a story told by the church, but there are other theories why the huns pulled back. Some historians postulate that illness was the reason, for instance. I wouldn't change it myself (right now) as I have more researching to do on it, but if anyone has good sources it would, I believe, be good for the article to present all views, or as many as are well backed up. --jenlight 13:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I modified it to reflect the ambiguity, while also fleshing out some alternative reasons. Generally, most sources I've read view the traditional account of Leo morally convincing Attila to grant mercy as quaint and unrealistic. Looking at it in terms of Realpolitik, there are much more persuasive interpretations behind Attila's decision (especially considering Attila's previous behavior). The myth that pope Leo himself saved Rome is likely a bit naive, although it makes for a powerful story--which is why it still gets told like that. At most Leo negotiated a deal and bought Attila off via shrewd diplomacy, not via morality appeals. 69.169.130.131 23:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Great addition. Do you have any recommended sources for someone who wants to follow up on some of these alternative theories? -- Stbalbach 14:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Leo definately did meet Attila the Hun outside Rome. This is mentioned in one contemporary chronicle - that of Prosper - and is mentioned in the Liber Pontificalis (which dates from the 530s/40s). This is not some fictionalised myth.

However, Leo was just one member of an embassy featuring three other high-profile citizens of Rome, one of whom (the senator Trigetius), already had a track record of negotiating with barbarians, the idea that Leo was the protagonist behind the embassy, and its most significant member, is later ecclesiastical myth making.

Whether or not the embassy was the real reason for Attila's change of direction, is as has already been mentioned, highly debated. But that it actually happened, is not really in doubt.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.49.118 (talk • contribs) January 15 2007.

I am going to change the article so it says he met attila the hun outside of rome, rather than persuaded him to leave rome untouched. the current statement is POV, and more to the point simply untrue - I cant think of a single current historian who places any weight upon leo's meeting with attila at all. --Snozzbert12 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

A neutrality warning should be placed on the article. It must have been taken from an early Catholic Encyclopedia. Johnor 11:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The antepenultimate paragraph of the article states:

Through the see of Peter, Rome has become the capital of the world in a wider sense than before. For this reason, when the earth was divided among the apostles, Rome was reserved to Peter, that here, at the very center, the decisive triumph might be won over the earthly wisdom of philosophy and the power of the demons; and thus from the head the light of truth streams out through the whole body.

If that paragraph is a summary of St. Leo's teaching, it should be cited as such; otherwise, it gives the imprssion of being non-NPOV. MishaPan 21:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am tagging the section "Zeal for Orthodoxy", it seems to require the most attention. I find it to be the most biased perspective within the article and, thus, the one that requires a tag most of all. I'm also putting another tag for the whole article (one that is less demanding because the rest of it may not require as much work). Also, Pope (St.) Dioscorus is made to look like somebody under rule of the catholic Pope. ROME IS NOT THE CAPITAL OF THE WORLD IN THE EYES OF OTHERS. As a Copt, I'm shocked, because the other (Coptic/Non-Chalcedonian) point-of-view is completely ignored. And if anyone has any objections, then look at what others said about the tag being required. It looks like the majorty is good with a tag, but there can still be discussion on which tag is most appropriate. "Zeal for Orthodoxy" could be renamed "Controversy" or have sub-sections with possibly "Zeal for Latin Orthodoxy" (in order to reduce confusion with Oriental & Eastern Orthodoxy). Also, the Oriental Orthodox (I know this because I am one) insist that St. Dioscorus was Orthodox in teaching and that he did adopt Pope St. Cyril's teachings (1: St. Dioscorus was Cyril's disciple and personal secretary; 2: I put several sources on Talk:Dioscorus of Alexandria#Oriental Orthodox Are Not Heretics explaining the Oriental Orthodox point-of-view). We can incorporate these & other sources to combine with other POVs to make it proper encyclopedic content (as in "NPOV"). Feel free to give me any suggestions. ~ Troy 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please look into re-writing some of these sections that carry with it polemics of Orthodox / Coptic Christians vs. Roman Catholics? It's silly to actually think that later titles such as "Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria" were actually used at the time of Leo. In other words, could someone please attempt to have the article reflect the understanding of the Christian church at the time of Leo? I'm a Catholic myself, and as a student of history I understand that the concept of Roman Supremacy is a later development, so of course I would also be against an article on Leo reflecting a later Roman Catholic understanding of the church, with Leo as the head as if he were Benedict XVI and all the other bishops were under him as in the RCC. But give me a break with the Orthodox Christian titles that will simply confuse most English speakers. Even someone a little versed in church titles like myself was confused. So yes, it's a good idea to make sure this artcile doesn't reflect too much of a later Roman Catholic conception of the papacy, but at the same time, the way to balance it out is by no means to introduce Orthodox polemics, which also reflect later understandings of the Orthodox church and later titles used by them only after the schism of 1054. Okay... done ranting. Chrisgaffrey (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Going overboard with the NPOV tags, perhaps?

I can see the reasons for the NPOV tags, and I can understand different sections being tagged as NPOV, but is it REALLY NECCESSARY to stick "Neutrality Disputed" after every single sentence? It seems both slighly overzealous and not a little bit childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.44.11 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, many of the "neutrality disputed" tags do not refer to POV issues--for example, how can the neutrality of the statement on John Cassian's dedication to Leo be disputed? Someone needs to calm down. And someone needs to clean this up.Kit1066 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No kidding, there's what, twenty of them? I'll just add a neutrality disputed tag at the top.--The Dominator (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)