Talk:List of popes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 1, 2005 Featured list candidate Promoted
October 21, 2008 Featured list removal candidate Demoted
Current status: Former 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)


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. " 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]


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 (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


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.' :) (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 (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? (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 (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 (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 (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 (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


The last Pope did not "renounce" the Papacy, he resigned. (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. (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 (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? (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? (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). (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


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)


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 (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)

This Article is a Blatant Violation of NPOV -- Peter Was No Pope[edit]

Now anyone with any significant education in "Church History" knows that it is widely discredited that anyone in the first two centuries was any "pope." You have no reliable secondary sources keyed to contemporary (I-II) witnesses to prove such a theory. Certainly in the Bible Peter is no pope (Witness Acts 15 and Galatians 2.) Moreover, no office of succeeding popes is promulgated in scripture at all. Claiming a list of popes back to Peter is obviously a denominational bone of contention. Thus if anyone cares for objectivity, this article needs to start out with the statement that the article is about the Roman Catholic Church's theory of popes, not the actual history of the papacy, if such an article is to be tolerated at all. Moreover, referring the "Catholic Church," as anything other than the sum total of those who trust Christ as Savior is also a denominational violation of NPOV. The papal system is not "the Catholic Church." Also, referring to Churches in the plural is an error (unless you refer to local churches), as there is and always has been only one Church. Denominations are not "Churches." (EnochBethany (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)).

This article specifically says at the top that it is about the Roman Catholic Church. The first line says it reflects the listing in Annual Pontificum. The article points to other denominations "popes". This is a listing, not an article. There are articles that discuss the controversy. This listing displays the listing of popes as define by the Roman Cathoic church.Marauder40 (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Question: Pius versus Pio[edit]

At the Vatican Website, in the articles I have read, any pope with the name of "Pius" is listed as "Pio" in Latin. (This is much like the way in which "John Paul" in English is listed as "Johannes Paulus" in Latin. So, what I am wondering is why our site here gives Latin monikers for all the Popes except anybody who used the name Pius? Otherwise, thank you for this site. Ithas been very handy in writing my thesis. Taram (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent updates without consensus - Edit warring[edit]

Greetings @Denisarona, Elizium23, Lord Sidious 82, and 艾德一世:

In April 2015, I made a few See also section updates, and am now contacted regarding recent updates to the List of Popes article.

  • First of all, I am posting here on the article's Talk page since this is the recommended place for this discussion.
  • Second, if the apparent edit waring continues, it might be appropriate for an Admin to place a temporary Read only to stop all updates until consensus is reached amoung interested editors.
  • Lastly, as a neutral third-party, I have no particualar preference for the Portrait column actual image used. My only concern is that the Portrait image should be much reduced in size (maybe one-half). With a larger image, as a result the Notes column is very narrow and becomes more difficult to read.

At this point, I welcome further discussion in the hopes of reaching a consensus. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I wish to echo what JoeHebda has said above. I have been summoned here and have no opinion at this time regarding the correct images, but I am willing to help moderate the dispute, as long as the involved parties are willing to discuss it civilly. Elizium23 (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I concur with the above, however, the point I would like to make is that the previous setout of the page was more than appropriate. As to edits made by 艾德一世, some additions are not sourced (I refer to several dates in the first few tables). I would perhaps advise that the page is reverted back to the way it was prior to the edits made in order to maintain the status quo. Lord Sidious 82 (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Do think the un-sourced info has to go; pics were fine before 艾德一世 altered it all. Ought to be fixed soon. (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Good day to @Denisarona, Elizium23, Lord Sidious 82, and 艾德一世: and User talk:,
Starting this morning, I am working on the column re-sizing as discussed in the Wider Notes column? section below. So I'm marking these two sections both with clock 'In progress'. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
You are doing an excellent job - Thank you. Regards Denisarona (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 Done It was a good day :-) The column re-sizing is complete. JoeHebda (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion: Wider Notes column?[edit]

Greetings, Below is an example (using only 21st century section) for possible re-sizing of columns and images to produce a wider notes column.

21st century[edit]

Numerical order Pontificate Portrait Name
English · Regnal
Latin (English)
Personal name Place of birth Age at start/end of papacy Notes
265Coat of Arms of Benedictus XVI.svg 19 April 2005
– 28 February 2013
(7 years, 315 days)
80px Benedict XVI
Papa BENEDICTUS Sextus Decimus

Cooperatores Veritatis
("Cooperators of the truth")

Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger Marktl am Inn, Bavaria, Germany 78 / 85 Oldest to become pope since Clement XII (1730). Elevated the Tridentine Mass to a more prominent position and promoted the use of Latin; re-introduced several disused papal garments. Established the Anglican Ordinariate. First pope to renounce the papacy on his own initiative since Celestine V (1294), retaining regnal name with title of Pope Emeritus.
266Insigne Francisci.svg 13 March 2013
– present
(4 years, 154 days)
80px Francis

Miserando atque Eligendo
("Lowly but chosen" -- literally in Latin 'by having mercy, by choosing him')

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J. Flores, Buenos Aires, Argentina 76 / - First pope to be born outside Europe since Gregory III (731–741) and the first from the Americas; first pope from the Southern Hemisphere. First religious pope since Gregory XVI (1831–1846); first Jesuit pope. First to use a new and non-composed regnal name since Lando (913–914).

If this sizing is acceptable, it will need to be applied to the earlier article's sections. On my wide-screen laptop, the Notes column shows more text per line than the current column width. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Looks great to me. Elizium23 (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is great - means there is more space + the coat of arms new size is more than acceptable. Lord Sidious 82 (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent, well done and thank you. Denisarona (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Column re-sizing[edit]

Starting this morning, I am working on the column re-sizing. So I'm marking with clock 'In progress'. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done It was a good day :-) The column re-sizing is complete. JoeHebda (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikitables, missing 'Age' column[edit]

Greetings, While updating this article's wikitables, I noticed that the Age at election / death or resigned column is missing from these centuries.

  • 11th century  Done
  • 12th century  Done
  • 13th century Pending
  • 14th century Pending

Within the wikicode I placed commented code for the missing column:

<!-- next column is missing, needs to be added ! style="width:5%;"| {{small|Age at start/end of papacy}} -->

Hopefully an expert editor will be able to find this additional content and update the Age column. After updating, perhaps this article could be nominated for FA status. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Updated status - 11th & 12th century (completed by another contributor). Thanks! JoeHebda (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Images of Popes[edit]

The images of the popes come from St Paul Outside the Walls and were painted in the 19th century. I propose either: deleting all images that are not actual portraits (pretty much all the images up to Pius X) or marking each image from St Paul Outside the Walls with the phrase "19th century depiction"

2607:EA00:101:2417:9CD6:F14A:59D2:9375 (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Historical States[edit]

Hello everyone. Before this erupts into an edit war, I will take things in my hands. My contributions history is visible to anyone - I have been working with this IP FOR WEEKS now, making quality edits.

I was removing some of the blatant nonsense found in the page, some as mixing up modern Italian regioni (or even provincie), claiming Pavia was ruled by the might "BYZANTINES", and removing the coat of arms of a family who ruled much, much later than these centuries.

If someone is so illiterate not to understand, I feel bad for them. These are my edits and will stay, and if ONLY ONE ignorant sheep will oppose, then be my edits be reviewed by an informal third part.

-- (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Flags in the place of birth column[edit]

What is the thinking behind having flags and other icons in the "Place of birth" column of the main table? Their use here contravenes the MOS, specifically Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance and Never use a flag for birth or death place. I don't want to rush in and remove them as someone has clearly spent a great deal of time inserting them, but I don't see what value they add, they are distracting, and they contravene MOS. Thoughts? --Tgeairn (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey there. I was just continuing the work of those who came before; however, I only have to admit that the final result is not as pleasant as expected. In my humble opinion, the subnational flag may go. -- (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree, dump them. Elizium23 (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know who'll be tasked with the removal, though - I may do that myself, but I may also go and sleep now and resume my own editing tomorrow. Sure, it would be sweet if someone took care of both chores, removing the flags and fixing all errors in placebirths! It would be a nice surprise to come back and see that someone has concluded what I have started-- (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── * Consensus – Remove national flags from "Place of birth". Will begin today & proceed backwards (as usual) through the tables. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

First "religious pope"?[edit]

The current text states that Pope Francis is "the first religious pope"(!!). Not quite sure what is meant by that. It seems to imply that he is the first to belong to a "religious order" within the Catholic Church (which afaik is not true, he is "only" the first Jesuit). Maybe someone with more knowledge than me of these orders within the church can clarify. However, can't we agree that the wording "the first religious pope" is very weird? dllu (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Denisarona (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What on earth do all these numbers mean?[edit]

In the column entitled "Name (English / Regnal)", what do those numbers refer to? For example, under the first Pope, Peter, it says: "(1 - 29 June 67)". For the second Pope, Linus, it says: "(10 - 23 September 76)". What is all of that supposed to mean? I can't see anywhere in the article or the chart where these notations are explained. (Unless I missed it?) Also, these notations continue on for many of the Popes in the list and then, suddenly, they stop. Can someone please explain? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Their life spans. But yes, why do they stop with Honorius III?  :— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazzster (talkcontribs) 02:34, 20 February 2016‎‎ (UTC)
Huh? What? What do you mean by "life span"? Let's look at Peter. What exactly does the "(1 - 29 June 67)" mean? That he was born in the year 1 and died on 29 June 67? Let's look at Linus. What exactly does the "(10 - 23 September 76)" mean? That he was born in the year 10 and died on 23 September 76? First of all, this is not clear. Second of all, why is this listed under "Name" column as opposed to, say, a column called "Life Span"? Third of all, the inconsistent format makes it all even more confusing. For example, when I see "(10 - 23 September 76)", that means to me -- rightly or wrongly -- "the 10th of September through the 23rd of September in the year 76". It's all poorly worded, phrased, and formatted. It's all confusing. And it is under the wrong column header. And, as mentioned, it inexplicably stops mid-way through the chart. Please fix. Thanks. I don't know enough about this topic to contribute meaningfully. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Joseph A. Spadaro – I agree with your observations. After the Wider notes column updates (see below section) are done, I'm offering to cleanup by removing these "life span" good-faith updates. Since I started on Wikipedia (April, 2014) from time to time, some editors have made changes to the list without any discussion on the talk page. This page is on my watch list, but I must have missed this particular update. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  03:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@JoeHebda: Thank you. This is an excellent article, and it would be a shame for such a thing to detract from its excellence. Thanks for your work on this article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Joseph A. Spadaro – FYI, major cleanup of this list is mostly done. Over at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Question: article with 20 wikitables Trappist the monk created three templates so that going forward any wikitable structure changes are much easier! A template change will immediately be reflected at all 21 tables. The templates are:

Updates remaining: add Pope list item template to all the wikitables. Cheers!  JoeHebda (talk)  22:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Huh? I just checked the article. The issue that we were discussing above is still present in the chart. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Joseph A. Spadaro – Looks okay in my browser. See WP:Purge to clear browser cache & get a current page to display.  JoeHebda (talk)  13:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@JoeHebda: I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing? When I look at the list, it still has the begin/end dates under the column for "Name (English / Regnal)". So, for example, under the first Pope, Peter, it still says: "(1 - 29 June 67)". For the second Pope, Linus, it still says: "(10 - 23 September 76)". And these dates continue up until Pope Innocent III, where it says: "(23 November 1160 - 16 July 1216)". So, are we referring to the same issue? If so, why would my Wikipedia page show this, while yours does not? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Joseph A. Spadaro – Sorry for the confusion. You are 100 percent correct that those numbers are still there for popes #1 - #176 and need to be removed. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  21:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@JoeHebda: Thanks. So, I am still confused. That issue is the issue that I had complained about, above. You indicated above that the issue was addressed and the article was cleaned up. What clean-ups were you referring to then, if not the clean-ups associated with my original complaint? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Joseph A. Spadaro – The cleanup was for the Wider Notes column issue.  JoeHebda (talk)  21:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. That has to do with the issue raised below. But not my issue raised above. Thanks. I do not know enough about this topic to edit this page. So, hopefully someone can clean this up. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done – Joseph A. Spadaro, Wanted to let you know that I finished the Name column cleanup. In looking at Pageviews information, I see this list gets over 3,000 per day so I'm glad these confusing numbers are removed. Cheers!  JoeHebda (talk)  14:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wider notes column[edit]

Greetings, for the 21st century table (two most recent popes), I updated to make the Notes column wider. Going forward, or rather backward, I plan to update the prior tables with this same format. I see that using the smaller template makes the Notes column easier to read, at least with Vector skin & my accessability changes. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  15:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Abbreviation for "Servant of God"[edit]

Greetings, At the article Servant of God, I added the Latin: Servus Dei translation into the lead section. For this article, (talk) made good-faith edits changing the "S.D." abbreviation to S.G.. This was done with:

04:51, 4 June 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . List of popes ‎ (→‎20th century: As per previous, G not D.) (current)
04:50, 4 June 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . List of popes ‎ (→‎18th century: As per previous alteration, G not D.)
04:50, 4 June 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . List of popes ‎ (→‎19th century: Wrong abbreviation, G not D.)

Subsequently, I did the Undo reverting back to the S.D. abbreviation. In order to avoid any misunderstandings, I am posting this message here. If there are any conflicting opinions, feel free to state them here as I'm open to discussion (I may be mistaken). Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC) ¿ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinesh bhale (talkcontribs) 19:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Antipope removal from this list; please help cleanup[edit]

Greetings, Today I removed two wikitable entries for Antipopes that should not be in this list. Could another expert editor please look at Pope #130, Pope John XII entry which is now in there twice, after I removed the Antipope. This is beyond what I know about. Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Anaclet II missing from the list of the heirs of Peter?[edit]

The kindnapped 5-year old jewish boy, who was then raised into Cardinal Pierloni Petrus and elected to papacy as Anaclet II, is missing from this list for reasons unknown. It is well-known that he resigned after just 6 months, due to meeting his father, a rabbi and then traveled to Jerusalem to renounce christianity. He lived with his parents in Germany in solitude until old age. (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean Antipope Anacletus II? Nah, he's not missing, he doesn't belong here. Elizium23 (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


This list cites his birth place as Athens and that he was martyred. Our article on this Pope says he was born in Rome and makes no mention of being martyred, merely that he died. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There is this from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913. As encyclopedias go this was one of the best ever produced with a focus on religious subjects, but... it's a hundred years old and scholarship doesn't stop. More than a few articles dealing with Catholic subjects rely far too heavily, in some cases almost exclusively, on this source. This article seems to have multiple sources though, some of which are more current. Sadly the entry from Butler's Lives of the Saints (1894 ed.) offers little in the form of background. This is more specific in asserting his martyrdom under Diocletian. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Reread the source please. It says "Martyred in the persecutions of Domitian."

Domitian (reigned 81-96) was a religious reformer who placed himself as a "perpetual censor", and "sought to control public and private morals". His anti-corruption campaigns were autocratic. There is a claim by 4th-century historian Eusebius "that Jews and Christians were heavily persecuted toward the end of Domitian's reign."

Diocletian (reigned 284-305) lived two centuries later and is remembered as the founder of the Tetrarchy, and the figure responsible for ending the Crisis of the Third Century. The Diocletianic Persecution of Christians (303-313), a ten-year long campaign, is named after him. In practice, he initiated the persecution, but abdicated early. Other emperors of the Tetrarchy continued the campaign. The Edict of Milan (313), jointly proclaimed by emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius marks the end of the Persecution. Dimadick (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

motto column?![edit]

Name: English · Regnal Motto: Latin (English)

This column contains no motti at all, in any language. To a passerby unacquainted with the history and customs of this article, that looks strange. Could someone enlighten me? —Tamfang (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Tamfang, Thanks for this observation. Another editor has moved the Motto info into the "Notes" column. See the "20th century" table for examples. It's been a while since I worked on this article. I did cleanup the "Name" column. To see the change, you may need to click on "Purge" (under the "More" part of the toolbar). Cheers! JoeHebda • (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Zero day[edit]

I just edited the article (diff) to replace each "0" for a day in a date with "1". The following shows the wikitext of the lines as they were, before my edit:

| 14 August 897<br>– November 897<br>{{small|({{Age in years and days|897|8|0|897|11|0}})}}
| December 897<br>- 20 December 897<br>{{small|({{Age in years and days|897|12|0|897|12|20}})}}
| 30 July 903<br>– December 903<br>{{small|({{Age in years and days|903|7|30|903|12|0}})}}
| 14 April 911<br>– June 913<br>{{small|({{Age in years and days|911|4|14|913|6|0}})}}
| March 914<br>– 28 May 928<br>{{small|({{Age in years and days|914|3|0|928|5|28}})}}
| 28 May 928<br>– December 928<br>{{small|({{Age in years and days|928|5|28|928|12|0}})}}
| 15 March 931<br>– December 935<br>{{small|({{Age in years and days|931|3|15|935|12|0}})}}
| October 974<br>– 10 July 983<br>{{small|({{Age in years and days|974|10|0|983|7|10}})}}
| December 983<br>– 20 August 984<br>{{small|({{Age in years and days|983|12|0|984|8|20}})}}

Template {{Age in years and days}} has just been changed to use a module, and the module displays an error message for invalid dates. My edit was to remove the errors from this article. Is there a problem using "1"? Is anything more needed? Johnuniq (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

7th and 8th centuries: nationality Greek ?[edit]

In the notes column, we're currently identifying all the popes between 604 and 817 as "Greek", with Greek-style personal names, even if they were born and bred in Rome.

Is this correct? Are there reliable sources that we are following in this?

In this period Rome was indeed part of the Exarchate of Ravenna, that was part of the Byzantine empire.

But would Romans have really considered themselves Greek? Would the language of the church and the elite in Rome really have been Greek rather than Latin?

I think this could use some clarification. Jheald (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

According to our article Byzantine Papacy, Pope Theodore I (642-649) is claimed by many authors as the first "Eastern Pope", though it suggests that Pope Boniface III (607) was "very likely" of Eastern extraction. Pope Vitalian (657-672) is said to be possibly of Eastern extraction. However the main run of Greek popes is identified as starting with Pope Agatho (678-681), encompassing ten of the next twelve popes, to 752.
The remaining popes between 604 and 817 should presumably not be identified as culturally Greek. Jheald (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)