|WikiProject Christianity / Texts / Catholicism / Canon Law||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
There is a page on Unam Sanctam, but it is called Unam sanctam. Is there a standard available for the caps?
- There is probably no standard YET for papal bulls in . You are welcome to suggest one. In the meantime, I have created a redirect. olivier 06:35, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
As the titles of the bulls are the first two Latin words of their text, the use of lower case for the second word seems more appropriate and in line with general policy... Djnjwd 00:59, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Your external link borders on hate speech. It's inflammatory and polemic. BTW Im not Catholic, but I sure have a poor opinion of the seventh-day Adventists if thats the kind of crap they put out. --Stbalbach 06:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Seventh-day Adventists don't ghostwrite for popes. If popes publish hate speech, Wikipedia should represent popes as promulgators of hateful speech. Naturally, Catholics approve of what the popes have written. You are free to call it "hate speech" and "crap" if you like but they are the words of men revered for their supreme holiness.
The first quote you label as crap is of the same character as all the other selected quotes. If you google for *Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull "Unam Sanctam" you will find 9,810 hits. On the first page you will see the Catholic reference *papalencyclicals.net. The translation given there agrees with the reprehensible quotation you seem to loathe: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." --184.108.40.206 08:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, the title of the article is hate speech, it's an outright attack on Catholics. It violates the rules of Wikipedia on neutrality. --Stbalbach 16:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The original title was "Selective Quotes From Roman Pontificates". How about a change of title to "A Catholic Requirement for Salvation"? or "The belief that all should submit to the Roman Pontiff"? --220.127.116.11 17:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Whats this have to do with an academic encyclopedia article on Papal Bulls? Nothing. Its polemic material, you obviously have an agenda and are pushing your POV that attacks Catholics. --Stbalbach 17:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be better that I start a Wikipedia article on *The Catholic belief that all should submit to the Roman Pontiff. Thanks for the suggestion! --18.104.22.168 18:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no expertise in this area, so forgive me if I'm off the mark, but this seems incorrect to me: "Aeterni regis, 1481—Sixtus IV (dividing the New World between Spain and Portugal)" Firstly, because what I understand by the term "The New World" wasn't discovered by Europeans until 1492, and secondly because, according to the Wikipedia article Aeterni Regis, it does no such thing.
- Good call. Fixed the description and added a reference at the relevant page Aeterni regis --Wetman 20:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The convention is just the same as that for "duchess": When a specific pope is intended, the title is capitalized: Pope Alexander VI. When "the pope" could be substituted by "a pope" in a sentence, signifying "this or any pope", it is not capitalized. --Wetman 03:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The two or three opening words of a bull, known as its incipit ("it begins"), do not form a summary of the theme, nor are they necessarily indicative of the contents; they are simply the first two or three words of the opening sentence. A glance down the list of bulls given at the end of the article will demonstrate this fact. Do we need to give English translations of these Latin words to convince any stray doubters? --Wetman 10:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, a few of the bull articles have translations, I see what you mean. If you can translate, perhaps all of them should have translations. -- Stbalbach 15:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wetman is right that often (not always, some popes seem even to shift the first phrase, as Latin grammar allows rather well, for this purpose) the incipit is meaningless in se, so translations would be rather pointless; a short mention of the actual subject would make more sense, if anyone goes to the trouble of looking them up. Fastifex 06:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Gratia Divina, 1656
I have been unable to find any information related to the bull Gratia Divina (1656) found in the "Examples of papal bulls" section. Can anybody come up with a reference, or should this item be deleted? — Itai (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
List and Examples
Since we now have a separate article List of papal bulls, can anyone justify why we also need an Examples of Papal Bulls? It looks like they are almost the same in length - a bare list of "examples" is indiscriminate trivia. -- Stbalbach 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved the examples list to the talk page of List of papal bulls and added a top hat to this article pointing readers to the List article for specific bulls. -- Stbalbach 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest removing the second image, the letter of Innocent IV: it is a good image and certainly a copy of an actual papal bull. The problem is that it is a copy in codex form and lacks the important seal. The first example shows the seal from which the term "bull" is derived. It alone would be a sufficient example. Aramgar (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC) I have removed the second image. Aramgar (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Current slang terms
If I'm not mistaken, the term "Bullshit" derived from Papal Bulls, protestants calling them "shit" leading to the common association with general lies. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
"INTER CAETERA" OF 1493
While Papal Bulls are supposed to be edicts, messages to the public, or decrees for that matter, they also gave rights to the rulers of the known world to conquer, take land both known and unkown and convert the indigenous peoples to Catholicism. This also gave conquerers the right to claim all lands whether the were inhabited or not for their own. The particular Bull Inter Caetera of 1493 grants Spain and Portugal the license to invade and convert people of any lands to Catholicism by whatever means necessary. This Bull seems to authorize the use of torture and murder as a means of conversion as well as slavery to provide wealth to the church. Of course the words are not outrightly written but inferred and can be seen in the english transcript version in the link provided below. cited reference: http://www.manataka.org/page155.html Eire's Son 15:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eire's Son (talk • contribs)
Take your Anti-Catholic sentiments and contribute to the Criticism of the Catholic Church article. This is an article regarding Papal Bull, not your soap-box for Anti-Pope complaints. TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. LoveforMary (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary
Since there are different types of papal communications, the articles on bulls, encyclicals, and decretals should all discuss the different applicability. For example, are bulls always applicable to the entire church while encyclicals were usually regional. The fact that there has been sloppy usage shows that these articles need to clear up the confusion. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Rescinding a papal bull?
Re this: http://www.domlife.org/2012Stories/500th_anniv_udpate_feb.html Is there a formal structure in place to revoke or repeal papal bulls, and how many times in the past has this happened? Kortoso (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)