Talk:Pope/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Question about the leading sentence:

The leading sentence appears rather unambiguously to refer to the Roman Pontiff as the head of the Orthodox church. This appears inconsistent with the Wikipedia entry on that church, and with the history of those two branches of Christianity. Would someone care to explain why this phraseology was chosen? It appears to assert a POV that is at minimum greatly in dispute.

I think the sentence says that the Pope is the leader of the Eastern Catholic church, which is different from the Eastern Orthodox church, if I'm reading that correctly. EvilPhoenix 19:00, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
It should read "Roman Catholic Church" not "Catholic Church" because of the differences between those two distinctions. The Catholic Church referrs theologically to the whole spectrum of churches which agree to a series of beliefs (which curiously, the Roman Catholic Chruch denies). The term "Roman Catholic Church", however, refers to the church headed by the papacy in Rome.
Um, what? "Catholic Church" does not "referr" to what you say it refers. Got a credible source? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Question about Orthodox/Coptic Popes

I had a bit of difficulty checking on this sentence from the article:

"(by comparison, the formal title of the Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria is "Successor of Saint Mark the Apostle, Shepherd of Shepherds, Father of Fathers, Supreme Pontiff of All Metropolitans and Bishops, Judge of the World, and Beloved of Christ", often called the "Ecumenical Judge"; the Coptic Pope is styled "Pope and Patriarch of the See of Alexandria and of All the Predication of the Evangelist St. Mark")"

Looking around on Wikipedia, I found references to the Patriarch of Alexandria, but I also found several instances where it seemed that the leader of Orthodoxy was in fact the Patriarch of Constantinople:

Eastern Orthodoxy: "The Patriarch of Constantinople currently enjoys the honorary title of "First Among Equals"; which simply means that in council, he occupies the position of president in what is otherwise a democratic organization. "

as well as the Patriach of Constantinople article itself. Any thoughts? I'm not sure it's accurate to describe the Patriarch of Alexandria as the "Pope" of Orthodoxy, but I'm certainly no expert. Any thoughts? EvilPhoenix

My first thought is to ask you to please sign your posts to talk pages! ;)
The point of the "Other Popes" section is to point up others who bear that title. The Pope of Alexandria is simply an Orthodox pope, not the pope of Orthodoxy. Indeed there's nothing about the title itself that implies the overarching authority claimed by the Pope of Rome; it's just an affectionate diminutive for "Father". It might be worth adding that in the Russian Orthodox Church simple priests are often called "popes" as well.
The Ecumenical Patriarch (Patriarch of Constantinople, "EP") has never been addressed as a "Pope". Nor is he really the leader of Orthodoxy, his press releases to the contrary notwithstanding. The only bishops bound in obedience to him are the suffragans of his own diocese, at least in theory. In practice (as I understand it) his Holy Synod pretty much supports anything he wants to do, so via that instrument he can command the obedience of any bishop in his Patriarchate, even ruling bishops. No bishop outside his Patriarchate owes him anything but acknowledgement as primus inter pares. But now I get into ecclesiastical politics, which I prefer to leave off discussing. Csernica 21:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes yes, I meant to go back and add my name, thanks for the reminder. :-). So then it would seem that the phrase used in the article should in fact say Alexandria, and not Constantinople. However, would it still be appropriate phrasing to refer to the Patriarch of Alexandria as the "Orthodox Pope", or should that wording be clarified? Thanks for your input. EvilPhoenix 01:06, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to be more explicit. To call anyone the Orthodox Pope would simply be misleading. There is no office in the Orthodox Church that's equivalent to that held by the Pope of Rome. There is one Patriarch who customarily uses that title among many others -- but please don't be deceived by the titles! "Byzantine" Romans love titles, and applied them liberally wherever they wanted. They're not necessarily to be taken all that seriously, especially when we get to ones like "Judge of the World".
Odd as it may seem, "Pope of Alexandria" is not among these inflated titles. In the Christian East it retains its more ancient meaning of a simple affectionate way of referring to a beloved pastor, and long usage has attached it more or less permanently to the Patriarch of Alexandria. This was also its original meaning in Rome from centuries before the bishop of that city pressed any claims of universal jurisdiction.
It's true that there are no other Orthodox Patriarchs that customarily use the title, (although it's not entirely unknown to Antioch) but it's still incorrect to call the P of A the Pope of Orthodoxy because he's not the only personage so called! As I said, any Russian village priest is likely to be called a "pope" by his parishioners.
In other words, the paragraph is correct as-is. (Its original purpose was to simply identify other offices with the title "Pope", but someone confused it by adding a reference to the caliphate. If anything, that's the part that should be cut.) Csernica 02:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate you changing the wording of that first sentence in your previous edit to the talk page. Based on your advice, I am feeling like a slight edit to the section I was looking at would be appropriate. I may have confused you, I was referring to a sentence in the introduction of the article, not in the "other popes" section. Id be interested to hear your opinion of my imminent edit to the article page. Best regards. EvilPhoenix 04:10, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Please don't edit my indents. This isn't email, and if each stage in a lengthy exchange is indented on position more each time, then half the page is blank space before long. Alternating indents are sufficient to clearly indicate replies.
I see my confusion now. IMO that sentence shouldn't be there at all. I can see no reason to talk about any Orthodox Patriarchs at that point. It seems a non-sequitur. If the contributor who first added it had a point, I can't see it. Csernica 08:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


I added a couple sentences about the pejorative term Papist to the Pope article in the Objections to the Papacy section.
JesseG 18:46, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

So I see. However, lots of people, perhaps even most people, who use the word know very well that Roman Catholics don't worship the Pope. Csernica 23:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Did Pope John Paul II consider abdication ?

The article currently reads:

After his death it was revealed in his last will and testament that he considered abdicating in 2000 as he neared his 80th birthday.

Yet it seems that the whole media bruhaha derives from an incorrect translation; the text of the testament cites in Latin the verse of Luke 2:29 "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace", where the Latin for "depart" may be also translated as "resign".

Furthermore, if one reads the verse in the Gospel of Luke, one can see that the word "depart" refers to the end of eathly life, not to resignation of an office. Also, it is a verse of thanksgiving.

According to the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia - Article on Simeon the Just: The "just and devout" man of Jerusalem who according to the narrative of St. Luke, greeted the infant Saviour on the occasion of His presentation in the Temple (Luke ii, 25-35). He was one of the pious Jews who were waiting for the "consolation of Israel" and, though advanced in years, he had received a premonition from the Holy Ghost, Who was in him, that he would not die before he had seen the expected Messias. This promise was fulfilled when through guidance of the Spirit he came to the Temple on the day of the Presentation, and taking the Child Jesus in his arms, he uttered the Canticle Nunc dimittis (Luke, ii, 29-32)...

Thus, the Nunc Dimittis (Now let depart) verse "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace", is an act of thanksgiving uttered by Simeon when he saw the Child Jesus in the Temple. The promise had been fulfilled, and he was now ready to die.

Pope John Paul used the same verse in a section of his testament were he expressed thanks for being allowed to preside over the celebrations of Great Jubilee, marking the beginning of the Third Christian Millenium.

Thus, the use of this verse is nothing but an act of thanksgiving and, perhaps, an indication that John Paul II percieved his mission as having been fulfilled, and that, like Simeon, he was ready to meet the end of his earthly life.

This has nothing to do with an indication of willingness to resign.

Malachi Martin seriously considered this option to be realistic in his novel Windswept House. Stijn Calle 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


I noticed that it said that on the subject of Pope stepping down that it couldn't be because the pope is viewed as infallable. I believe this to be incorrect, if my teachings from catholic highschool theology are correct. First - he is human and a sinner so he is fallable. Second - he is only infallable on matters of faith. Third - He has to inact Papal Infallability. So unless the 3rd is done, then technically, it is not infallable. If I'm not mistaken, Papal Infallability has only been done less than 10 times, maybe even less than 5. The correct theological view is simply that the Holy Spirit moves people to vote for the pope. --THollan 02:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actualy, yours is a common mistake. Every time a canonisation is performed, for instance, infallibility is in play. The declaration of the Pope that someone is a saint means that there is absolutely no doubt that this person is in Heaven with God, not in hell, not in purgatory, but already in the glory of the Kingdom of God. This is a dogmatic fact, and the proclamation is regarded as infallible.
The Pope himself is fallible, his magisterium (teaching office) is, on some occasions, infallible. And the conditions for the discharge of the infallible magisterium are those set out in the fourth chapter of Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus: the Pope must be speaking "ex cathedra", that is, by a pronouncement that is not only official but also a solemn disharge of his office, he must be speaking as teacher of all christians, i.e., the papal speech or document must be adresssed to the entire universal Church, not only to a person group or community. Thirdly, the subject of the teaching must be a matter of faith or morals. If the subject matter is not to do with faith or morality, then the Pope must also be obeyed by his followers, of course, but he is not covered by infalibility. The infallible magisterium covers only matters of faith and morals. With that being said, it is not necessary for the pope to explicitly say: "this is an infallible teaching".
I'm going to agree that it is wrong via precedence. If you can excomunicate a pope, the pope can sure as hell step down. I could list a few cases, but even better wikipedia already has an article on it Papal_abdication.


This is nuts. It's not like he was a god himself or something.

Taking this perhaps more seriously than it deserves: Whether you're Roman Catholic or not (I'm not) whether you're even Christian or not, Pope John Paul II was unquestionably a giant in the history of the last decades of the 20th Century. The world will not be the same without him and his influence. His death is therefore a significant historical event and people everywhere, regardless of their religion, have reacted accordingly. Csernica 22:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No one ever sais that John Paul II was a god. I wonder if whoever wrote that statement, "This is nuts" would say the same thing in the case of Bill Clinton, or another person that he or she admires. Because I strongly suspect that the "This is nuts..." statement was sour grapes on their part.
JesseG 18:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Basis for the Pope

I am interested in knowing how Catholics have come up with the Idea of the Pope, is their scheme found within some teach...etcetera etcetera...if anyone is knowledgeable on this subject...I'd encourage the addition of it to this article

Catholics believe that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome
Based on Matthew 16:17-19, the Catholic church beleive in the primacy of St. Peter:
"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
Catholics beleive that Peter's successors as Bishop of Rome also succeed him as head of the Church.
See Catholic Encyclopedia, specifically section "II. PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE".
I'll add information coverering this if it is hasn't been added previously. Kenj0418 22:59, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
This information is alreay in the article (Even the quote from Matthew) Kenj0418 23:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

So what gives the Pope all this power, and why is he commonly viewed as "God-on-earth" for lack of better terms? - Scott

As a Catholic, my beliefs regarding any Pope are:
  1. He is a man, not "God-on-earth"
    1. As any other man, can be extremely flawed or even scandalously sinful (see Pornocracy)
    2. He can also be quite virtuous, but still human, and thus not perfect. I would put JPII in this category.
  2. He is the head of the Catholic Church, and as such:
    1. Speaks on behalf of the church on spiritual and temporal matters
    2. Appoints (or whatever the correct term is) Bishops, Cardinals, etc. of the Church
    3. With the aid of the Holy Spirit, can speak definitively on matters of faith (but rarely does so)
    4. Set, or delegate to others to set, various rules regarding the Church (see Canon Law)
    5. As Peter's successor, can exercies the powers and duties Jesus granted to Peter
  3. As he is a priest, and bishop, he can:
    1. minister (or assist in the ministry of) the Sacraments of the church
    2. (as a bishop), exercise the powers and duties Jesus granted to the Apostles
I would not say he is commonly viewed by Catholics, or anyone else, as "God-on-earth", or anything similar. Kenj0418 18:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Pope is head of which other Catholic Churches?

what other Catholic Church considers the Pope its head?

there is one Catholic Church, with many rites (Roman-Catholic, Greek-Catholic, recently maybe Trident-Catholic,

but not officially yet).

But I seem to remember that there were Churches with "catholic" with name which didn't consider Pope as its head.

So list is Roman and Greek Catholic.

           -- Taw
See for a list of Eastern rites within the Catholic church. Other churches like the Old Catholic Church split from the Catholic after Vatican I and don't aknowledge the pope. -rmhermen
The eastern rites are not part of the Roman Catholic church -they are part of the Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church should call itself (and sometimes does) the Roman ritre of the Catholic church. See Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 1964. -rmhermen
Are you sure about that? -- as far as I am aware the Eastern rites are part of the Roman Catholic Church; since they accept the Bishop of Rome as head of the church. The Roman Catholic Church has several rites, the Western ones (Roman or Latin, Ambrosian and Mozarabic) and the Eastern. -- Simon J Kissane
They're all part of the Catholic Church. Roman is, specifically, the Latin Rite, but 'Rite' is a tricky term. In the case of the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites it actually means only "approved variation in ritual scheme for certain dioceses only" - you can't have an authorized mass in the Ambrosian Rite anywhere outside the region of Milan. The Eastern Rites, on the other hand, not only have different liturgies, but have separate organizational structures, i.e., churches, often with separate patriarchs (at least the Melkites and the Maronites have 'em - the Ukrainians want one), but they are in "union" with the Pope as supreme Patriarch. Technically "Roman" refers only to the Latin rite, but it gets applied to everyone in union with the Pope by extension. Latin rite Catholics mainly don't notice, and Eastern rite Catholics fume about it. Can you tell I know a bunch of Eastern Rite folks? --MichaelTinkler
Having been raised Byzantine Catholic (an Eastern Rite church) I just wanted to confirm the above. The entire thing is often called Roman Catholic, but the analogy I often use is that it is like calling the former Soviet Union "Russia". Yes, it's the biggest by far, and yes, most people know what you mean, but it is still wrong. --John Kenneth Fisher 13:16, May 15, 2005 (UTC)


Removed: Whether someone was a Pope or Antipope is mostly a matter of a historian's personal opinion. No, it is not a 'personal' opinion of a (one) historian. It is the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church about itself (which certainly involved consulting historians), discussed at great length in many individual cases by individual historians. In many cases there is no detailed discussion by historians because the person was very obviously an antipope. There are remarkably few difficult cases. This is not true, and should have been on the 'antipope' entry anyway; I'm going to run check and see if I need to delete it from there, too. --MichaelTinkler

Just as a detail, there is also a sort of slang used by Vaticanists, and in this allusive speaking the chief of Jesuits (Compagnia di Gesu'), whose charge is so important and influent that he can put an effective veto on Pope's decisions, is called "Papa nero" (black pope) or, sometimes, "antipapa".
But who is primarily called an antipope is an Avignone's schism Pope.
In case this could help, the Church we are talking about describes itself as "Santa Romana Chiesa" (Holy Roman Church), so this should be an official point.

Another official self-definition is "Chiesa Cattolica e Apostolica di Roma".

I think it should be left in but altered to In rare cases whether someone was a Pope or Antipope is matter of opinion.. The Roman Catholic Church can have conflicting views. If there are a few cases(I can think of at least one off the top of my head, Sylvester III) with a slight tweaking to fit your specification it remains true. Unless you have further complaints I see not reason why it shouldn't remain true. hello, how r u?

Disambiguating reference

I've moved the disambiguating reference to Alexander Pope and others with the Pope surname to the head of the article. Surely a person who is looking for these others will want to know immediately that he is in the wrong place, and is unlikely to want to scroll through the long list of popes to find it at the end. Eclecticology

Surname Pope

For notable persons with the surname Pope see

It has been hashed out in numerous places that listing people who happen to have a certain last name is not at all what disambiguation is for. --maveric149

Papal eras

I removed this odd list of periods from the bottom of the page because it is idiosyncratic and very Italocentric. The list essentially conveys to the reader who was in 'secular' control of central Italy during the period and does NOT adequately convey what external political powers had influence on the papacy in a particular period. Please note that the Lombards are mentioned (though the Lombard kings and dukes were a threat there is little evidence of direct influence on policy or papal elections) but the Carolingians are not (for whom there is lots of evidence). Avignon might be useful. What about the Hapsbugs? I hope this came out of an Italian source or a book translated from Italian. MichaelTinkler The reigns of the Popes can be roughly divided into eras:

  • Imperial era 42-395,
  • Western Imperial Era 395-476,
  • Herulian era 476-491,
  • Ostrogothic era 491-553,
  • Byzantine Era 553-751,
  • Lombard Era 751-756,
  • 1st Era of the Papal States 756-1309 (vacant 1268-71),
  • Avignon Era (the "Babylonian Captivity") 1309-1377,
  • 2nd Era of the Papal States 1377-1798,
  • Napoleonic interruptions 1798-1814,
  • 3rd Era of the Papal States 1814-1870,
  • Savoyard Era 1870-1929,
  • Vatican Era 1929-.

ex cathedra & Camerlengo

Wasn't it John XXIII and not Paul VI (as stated) who declared that he would never speak ex cathedra? Someone else 22:17 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)

Yup. It was John XXIII. I've changed it. Also removed the following sentence:

The Camerlengo officially pronounces the pope dead by tapping his head three times with a special hammer and calling his name; if there is no response the death is announced.

Though always quoted, it never happens, or hasn't anyway for decades and decades. It is one of these ancient ceremonies long abolished which every journalist, when it comes to the time of the death of a pope, always quotes as fact except . . . its fiction. It may have happened sometime in the past, but no-one in the Vatican has any memory of it, any record of it, or any idea when it died out. They don't even know where the little 'silver hammer' is. The other part of this ceremony involved the relevant cardinal, as he tapped His Holiness on the forehead, saying, {name of pope} 'Art thou dead'? Apparently, every camerlingo (is that the correct spelling, BTW?) on appointment asks for this mythical silver hammer, and is disappointed to be told, 'Sorry, Cam. No such ceremony'. JTD 05:35 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

I just returned an hour or so ago from the "St. Peter and the Vatican: The Legacy of the Popes" exhibit at the Cincinnati Museum Center, and one of the items on display was a small golden hammer, labeled as the Cardinal Chamberlain's hammer; the description specifically described the hammer's use to determine the Pope's death and to smash the Fisherman's Ring. As this exhibit is put together by the Vatican, I have therefore restored reference to the hammer ceremony to the text, with the caveat that it does not appear to have been practised any time recently (I believe the exhibit dates its last use to 1903 or so). Publius 22:03, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the hammer was used in at least both with Paul VI and John Paul I. This was done after medical professionals had already determined that the pope had passed away. The hammer is usually kept by the Chamberlin. Also, a pair of shears is used to cut the ring.
JesseG 16:02, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

That surprises me. Could you give me a source? Gugganij 14:44, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not so, Jess. It was not used since 1903 AFAIK. The ceremony was never done again and was finally officially abolished in 1996. Yes, media reports said it was done for Paul VI and John Paul I, just as they said it was done on John Paul II. It wasn't. That was just lazy journalists who didn't do their homework and just rehashed some old cuttings file stuff from earlier journalists did who did the same in their day. But it has not been done since it was performed on Leo XXIII in 1903, to the best of my knowledge. It certainly was not done in 1922 and never done afterwards. FearÉIREANN 01:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What about that special chair the story says candidates have to sit in, so the Cardinals can say "...habet et bene..."? PML.

The one to prove they have testicles and so aren't a woman in disguise? Myth too, I'm afraid. Though some old chair like that was found in the Lateran Palace once. But if it was done, it was back in the days when Martin Luther was in short pants!!! JTD


The election process is described in this article and in the conclave article, should one be folded into the other? ²¹²

Does anybody know if there was a pope who was not a cardinal when he was elected

does the pope have to be a cardinal when he is elected?

Why does the See Also link to Papacy wrap back to this article? Actually I was hoping for an article titled Papacy for the amusing reason that I'm trying to find a page of slurs, that I know I've seen once on wikipedia and can't find, and thought that Papacy might reference it. Ha, I can just look up some other, more obvious slur word (that has just occurred to me). Tried "Racism", tried "wop", gave up. Either I was drunk or imagining it, or I'm just not clever enough to find it.

I removed His Holiness the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in the section describing who is the current pope, since afaics is not usual for an encylopedia to refer to the holder of an office with its style. Gugganij 08:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Ceremonial insignia

I rewrote the article to provide a bit more logical structure and consistency of style; I also added a few details about ceremonial insignia and such associated with the Papacy, incorporated the information from Myths and legends surrounding the Papacy (which I intend to change to a redirect) and a brief summary of other Christian denominations' objections to the Pontificate. A History of the Papacy article would be an excellent addition to Wikipedia, and I plan to revise the Holy See and Roman Curia articles shortly, as well.

Incidentally, if anyone has any information about the mobile chair that the Popes used to use (I cannot for the life of me remember what it was called) and the Popemobile which has replaced it, it would be appropriate to include that information in the insignia section, as that is something popularly associated with the Popes, like the umbracullum. Publius 18:13, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have added the sedia gestatoria and mentioned that it has been replaced by the Popemobile, but I do not know enough about the Popemobile to give any details about it. Publius 22:03, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Extent of the article

I strongly disagree with any idea of including information from Myths and legends surrounding the Papacy in this article and making the page a redirect. Many of the myths are cloud cuckooland garbage. They are justified for inclusion in an article explaining them in the context of conspiracy theories but they no more belong in the main article than allegations of jews drinking christian babies' blood deserve serious detailed inclusion in articles on Judiasm, or Lyndon Johnson's supposed role in having JFK killed deserves to feature in any detailed way in an article on LBJ. Wild ludicrous nonsense like these stories, if covered at all, should be put in the cultural context of the fact they are extremist opinions held by a small group, not made an important part of a credible main article. FearÉIREANN 22:38, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jtdirl. Green Mountain 23:05, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely! Sometimes Wikipedia's reach for NPOV embraces some preposterous fringe fancies. Wetman 00:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I concede the point, gentlemen (or ladies, as appropriate). Aside from the matter already settled, have you any other suggestions on how to improve this article? Publius 00:05, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The only thing I can think of to expand the article would be something about the Pope's political role (especially in medieval times). Perhaps that only belongs in the article about the church, though. I was specifically thinking about things such as the crowning of monarchs (sometimes done by the Pope, I believe) and certain papal bulls (such as about the colonization of America, for example - see Treaty of Tordesillas). - Vardion 09:25, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, the Pope traditionally crowned the Holy Roman Emperor, starting with Charlemagne in 800 and ending with Charles V in the XVI Century. Other than that, I am not familiar with Papal coronations of other monarchs (excepting Napoleon Bonaparte, of course). I'm not sure where precisely that information would belong in the article as it is, or whether it belongs in a new (albeit short) section. What do you suggest? Publius 22:18, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think a new section would probably be the best way to incorporate it. Perhaps after the current Status and Authority section. But since I don't know that much about it, I'm not the best person to judge - whatever works best, I guess. Thanks. -- Vardion 00:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Removed text in ==Objections to the Papacy==

Removed, from ==Objections to the Papacy==:

Freethinkers can argue that the idea of an omnibenevolent God giving power to corrupt men like for example, Pope Alexander VI, Callixtus III , Judas Iscariot and some of the corrupt kings of Israel is illogical and contrary to the Scientific method.
Liberal Christians often argue that a loving God would not allow anyone to go to Hell. They would therefore reject concepts like, Anathema, excommunication and shunning.

The first argument -- that an omnibenevolent God would not give power to the corrupt -- had already been addressed, without this vague and irrelevant allusion to the scientific method. This is a question of theology (theodicy, to be precise), not of inquiry into concrete natural phenomena.

The second argument is about anathematization, shunning, and excommunication, none of which are powers unique to the papacy. This argument, if it does represent the views of some liberal Christians (references are nice, of course), could be placed in excommunication; it might say something like "Liberal Christian group X does not believe in damnation, therefore it does not believe that excommunication and anathematization are necessary corrective measures; also [any other arguments]."

There have been, and still are, valid reasons to criticize popes and the papacy, but these don't cut it. -- 15:10, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More removed text (bolded):

. . .the First Vatican Council anathematised all who dispute the Pope's primacy of honour and of jurisdiction (it is lawful to discuss the precise nature of that primacy, provided that such discussion does not violate the terms of the Council's Dogmatic Constitution) or challenge the authority of those in charge.

. . . for obvious reasons: it's a vague, opinionated restatement of already-explained facts. -- 07:32, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed section Jack Chick has in his Chick Tracts argued that being a Roman Catholic leads to damnation rather than salvation. for the following reason: The article is dealing with the Pope and - in the relevant subsection - of objections to the papal primacy claimed by the Roman Catholic Church, therefore if Roman Catholics go to hell or not is simply not the question to be answered here. 17:51, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Quasi-absolute monarch

"Quasi-absolute monarch" is a concept that escapes me, somehow... Wetman 05:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

It´s simple: He may not do as he pleases on all fields. The Pope is bound and limited by divine law. By the dogmas of the Catholic Faith. He cannot change matters that have been defined by the infallible Magisterium.

Thus he cannot, for instance, ordain women, because our faith holds that women are inherently, ontologicaly excluded from the reception of Holy Orders, so that, even if the ceremony is performed on them, it is a null and void ordination, because this Sacrament only comes into being when conferred on males. Pope John Paul II, following on the footsteps of the constant, millenia old teaching of the Magisterium, and confirming recent declarations of the Holy See to that effect, has defined, in his Letter "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", exercising his function of confirming the brethern in the Faith, that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, and that that teaching was final and was to be held definetively.

For avoidance of doubt, the Holy See, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, later issued, a "Response to a Doubt", approved by the Pope, clarifying that the papal definition in "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" met the criteria for infalibility and was therefore infallible and irreformable teaching that all catholics had to abide by.

Thus, there are matters that are irreformable for the Popes themselves. Laws that they can´t change. Popes cannot change the will of Christ, the law of God. Thus, they are rules of the Church with very extensive, but limited powers. --Antonio Basto 12:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The infallibility of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is highly suspect. Cf. Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Infallible? Carolynparrishfan 22:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the infalibility of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not suspect. One may believe that he is a Catholic and be a false Catholic. Only people who are not real Catholics, who are not in communion with the Holy See, challenge the infalibility of a document that has been declared infalible by the Vatican. As St. Augustine said: "Roma locuta, causa finita." (Rome has spoken, the case is ended). Since Holy Orders are one of the seven Sacraments instituted by Christ, the teaching contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is a teaching regarding the matter of one of the Sacraments, and thus, is a matter of Faith. The Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis clearly contains all the elements necessary for infalibility that have been set out in the forth chapter of the Dogmatic Constititution "Pastor Aeternus" (the document that defined the infalibility of the Papal Magisterium as a dogma of the Catholic Faith). What is more, the the "response to a doubt", issued, with the Pope´s express approval, by the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, clarified explicitly that the doctrine contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is indeed infallible and irreformable. And some women in Austria who invalidly attempted to be ordained to the priesthood in 2003 were excommunicated from the Church by the Vatican for defying the "ex cathedra" doctrine contained in ordinatio sacerdotalis. --Antonio Basto 12:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Lateran palace & Castel Gandolfo part of the Vatican?

I removed following sentence: the Lateran Palace and Castel Gandolfo are integral parts of Vatican City. Reason: The Lateran treaties explicitly state that they remain part of the Italian territory; but, as possessions of the Holy See (a subject of international law to be distinguished from the Vatican City), they enjoy the privileges of extraterritoriality (similar to the status of foreign embassies).

Laudabiliter et Fructuose

The papal bull authorizing the Donation of Ireland is known as "Laudabiliter" not "Laudabiliter et Fructuose"; it is the form used by the Encyclopædia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia (, and the Oxford History of England (volume III); and the form to be found most commonly on google.

What is it's veracity. Is it mentioned in non English texts..... is there an extant copy.

Ian Paisley?

OK, I'm not a Christian, but I wonder if Ian Paisley is worth the reference placed so centrally in this text - as an example of one who questions the Pope's authority. I can think of many, many other people who have done just that, who arguably have had more historical influence (Martin Luther comes to mind). Either additional examples should be added (though that may negatively affect the articles current high degree of readability), or the sentence should be removed. So, I ask for comment on this sentence:

Ian Paisley is one of those who strongly rejects the idea of the authority of the Pope.

If no one objects, I'll remove it 24 hours from now. I look forward to the debate! --NightMonkey 01:01, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)


What are the rules if/when the Pope is incapacitated? Say, is in a health state that renders him incapable of attending to his duties? David.Monniaux 20:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I presume that you are asking this AFTER having read the section Pope#Death_or_Resignation.2C_and_election, as I wrote the Resignation section to answer just this question. User:Peter Ellis 12:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Currently there are no rules allowing for incapacity of the pope. The closest would be to treat the Apostolic See as totally impeded. Davescj 09:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Papal naming

This didn't seem to be covered anywhere else, so I included it in a parethetical comment where it seemed relevant. Source: - Bitt 23:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-ordained Popes?

Hi. I was going to add a comment about Pope Adrian V being the only non-ordained Pope (he was never admitted to the priesthood; he died very soon after becoming Pope, which probably meant they intended to fix this, but hadn't). However, just because I can't think of any doesn't mean there weren't - have any other laymen been made Pope and then never ordained? Shimgray 18:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK the cited Adrian V was the only one. Shortly thereafter, a papal bull stated that papacy was only possible for cardinals. All laymen becoming pope would automatically rise to the rank of cardinal. Also, the Cardinals retreating into the sistinme chapel to elect a new pope has been in use since the mid 16th century or so. Eptalon 21:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above is a gross misunderstanding. Becoming a cardinal is NOT an instance of ordination. There have been non-ordained cardinals, and being cardinals did not in any sense make them ordained. Being ordained means becoming a deacon, priest, or bishop, i.e., receiving the sacraments of Holy Orders; becoming a cardinal is another matter entirely; it is not a sacrament. Michael Hardy 23:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)]
... and furthermore, you don't have to have ever been a cardinal to become pope. They can elect an un-ordained layman, and then, if he takes the job, he becomes pope only when he gets ordained a bishop. Michael Hardy 23:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
... which happens, if he's in the room, before he goes out on the balcony to be introduced to the Romans. Ordaining the pope, if necessary, is one of the jobs of Dean of the College of Cardinals.

Donation of Constantine

"...a territory formally known as the "Patrimony of St Peter" under the terms of the Donation of Constantine". "Under the terms of the Donation of Constantine did we say? Good grief! There is some bad news about the Donation of Constantine, which apparently hasn't penetrated denser Catholic circles... --Wetman 20:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please don't try to add unconfirmed reports of JPII's death. Wikipedia is not a news service. DJ Clayworth 19:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Donation of Constantine was proven to be false. No one takes seriously this document as being accurate nor as being written by Constantine despite the fact it was used as a justification for the papal states.Davescj 09:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


To whomever took out the death message, thank you. Please do not modify this status until the Vatican has confirmed his death.--Txredcoat 19:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photo of John Paul

I put an image of John Paul II back in the article. I think that the image should stay there until the next Pope is elected. Then an image of the new Pope could replace John Paul's image, but I think there should still be an image of him somewhere in the Pope article just because of his major role in the Papacy.
JesseG 03:16, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone took it out again. I think it should be put back, not because of anything special about JP2 but because an article about the Pope should have a picture, just to show his costume and stuff like that. If someone objects to a JP2 picture, then use some other historic Pope. 05:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From the history it looks like the picture was removed by accident. I put it back. 05:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sealing of Papal Apartment

The article says that, upon a pope's death, his private apartment is sealed. Is this forever or does the new pope eventually move in? --Westendgirl 07:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The apartment is sealed until the election of a new pope. -- KTC 21:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Objections to the Papacy

Eastern Christian objections to the modern Papacy are seriously misstated. It is not, as the article claims, that they recognize a "Petrine" primacy of honor for the bishop of Rome, it's that they recognize a canonical primacy based on the city's position as the old capital of the Empire. They in fact deny that the bishop of Rome is the successor to St. Peter in any kind of unique sense not shared by any other bishop. (They usually go even further and insist that Peter was never even bishop of Rome and therefore cannot have been the first Pope in any event.) As far as any kind of "Petrine primacy of jurisdiction" goes, they hold that it never existed in the first place. This is based the universal Holy Tradition of the Christian East, and supported by Acts 15 where it is manifestly evident that at the Council of Jerusalem it was the local bishop, St. James the Brother of the Lord, who presided and pronounced the decision of the council and not St. Peter who was certainly present (v. 7).

It may be a side issue that, at least for Eastern Orthodoxy, the Apostolic Succession is an issue of faith at least as much as it is a physical succession of laying on of hands and that therefore, since in their view the Pope is an heresiarch, any Apostolic Succession he may claim is null and void as far as they're concerned.

The only reason I'm not updating this paragraph myself is because as written it lumps Anglicanism together with the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Churches and I know next to nothing about Anglican objections to the Papacy. For all I know it's accurate as far as they're concerned. Csernica 03:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

Um, guys? When you revert some recent vandalism, could you please revert all of it? This partal reversion is a real PIA, especially when subsequent contributors don't notice and add more edits on top of it, necessitating a merge that otherwise wouldn't need to happen. Csernica 06:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other Popes

Something needs to be written how there are other Popes living at the same time as the Catholic Pope, and how calling the Catholic Pope "THE POPE" holds with it tremendous POV. Furthermore, I am proposing that what is now written under Pope should be moved to Roman Catholic Pope, and what is now at Pope (disambiguation) should be moved to Pope. Kingturtle 08:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

African Pope

I have heard that there has never been a black Pope, and I have heard that there was a black Pope. which is it? Kingturtle 08:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the old days, "Africa" denoted the Roman Province of Africa which was only the northwestern coast of the continent. In that sense there have been Popes from Africa, three of them to be exact, but they were of a Mediterranean rather than a sub-Saharan African cast. That area had been heavily colonized first by Phoenicians and then by the Romans themselves. I know it's very tempting to equate "African" with "Black". But consider that in the same period "Asia" meant strictly that peninsula between the Agaean and the Black Seas, where Turkey now is and which we now call "Asia Minor". If we were to hear that someone back then was born in Asia, he wouldn't look Chinese, but Greek. This is the same kind of thing. Csernica 09:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JPII's hypothetical abdication

Nevertheless, 332 §2 gave rise to speculation that either:
  • Pope John Paul II would have resigned as his health failed, or
  • a properly manifested legal instrument had already been drawn up that put into effect his resignation in the event of his incapacity to perform his duties.

The above, quoted from the article, does not make sense. "Properly manifested" means made public, doesn't it? Michael Hardy 21:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, this is the specific terminology used in Catholic canon law when describing the how the wishes of the Pope to resign must be expressed in order for his resignation to be valid. The problem, if such a document existed, is that someone would have to decide when the Pope was sufficiently incapacitated for it to take effect. A document that "properly manifested" his desire to resign would therefore presumeably describe the conditions under which it should be used with some specificity, and would express his desire to resign under those conditions in unambiguous terms. This article is among those discussing the situation. Csernica 01:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Objections to the papacy

Is this Bible passage a relevant objection to the papacy? Mat 23:9 - "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." This seems acutely relevant to at least the etymology of the term. -- FP 07:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

That depends entirely on whether some group that objects to the Papacy actually uses it that way. The point of the section isn't to actually argue against the Papacy but to present the reasons why set forth by those groups that reject it. Similarly, the Roman Catholic arguments in support of the Papacy are there to present the reasons they believe the institution is one required by their faith, not so as to convert anyone.
I don't know of any such groups personally. Generally that passage is used by certain Protestant groups to object to addressing priests as "Father". If you can find the verse being used against the Papacy by some legitimate group, I invite you to go for it. Csernica 07:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Relevant to this section in the article: At some point, someone inserted a counterargument. ("Defenders of the papacy argue...") Does that really belong? To me, it looks like an invitation to hash out the entire argument in the body of the article. Do we want counterarguments to the Papal claims in the "Office and nature" or "Status and authority" sections? Do we want "Objections" to contain fully developed arguments from both sides? If not, then I strongly suggest that the "Objections" section be left for objections and let the earlier sections stand for themselves. (Besides, the counterargument offered is fallacious, as I pointed out in a comment there -- but not in the visible article, since I strongly feel that such argumentation is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This is not a discussion forum.) Csernica 21:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


The new section on Rites of Osiris is unclearly written and lacks links. Moreover, I rather wonder about it ..... Michael Hardy 04:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suspect it's nonsense, and have removed it. Ah, the joys of a high-traffic article... Shimgray 08:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Age of Popes?

Shouldn't there be an article about the average and range of ages of Popes both at the time of selection and at death? NoSeptember(UTC)

If you mean an article simply reporting the data, if you can find it, write the article. If you want statistical analysis, that page could continue evolving for years. Michael Hardy 21:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As many other articles on office-holders, it could easily include one or two sentences on this, including the average age of an office-holder. -- User:Docu


I wonder why this page shouldn't be moved this page to Pope (Roman Catholic), since as this article states, there are more than just Catholic popes. As this is a major article I wasn't about to do it myself without consensus, and I'm sure the issue has been brought up before. So, why's it here? (--Dmcdevit 03:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) forgot to sign earlier)

Because wikipedia policy dictates that where something is overwhelmingly identified with one reference, it takes priority with the others disambigulated. So Dublin refers to the capital of Ireland, not the many tens of other Dublins on the planet, London refers to the British capital, not the many other Londons on the planet. Pope is generally referred to and understood worldwide to mean the Roman Catholic pope, with only small minorities recognising other meanings. So it has the main page, the rest are disambigulated. It is standard wikipedia policy all over the place. FearÉIREANN 01:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS - you forgot to sign. Type ~~~~ to sign a comment. (Just three of them for your name if you don't want the date and time. FearÉIREANN 01:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Hey, I'm no newbie, just careless. :) I guess I wonder why we don't have a general article anywhere at all about popes(I don't think). I saw a note about coptic popes on a talk page, and so I went to "Pope" expecting to find a page about what a pope (general term, not sect-specific) is. It seems to me that a Roman Catholic pope is not what a pope is, but an example, even if it is the most common example of a pope. It would be like having country take us to United States, because that's the most common example. Tell me where I'm wrong. --Dmcdevit 02:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is dealt with all over wikipedia by disambigulation. In any case moving this page is not a practical possibility, not unless you want to spend 24 hours a day for the next two weeks going through thousands of articles changing all the links. Otherwise you'd break the links and get torn to pieces by users. Not joking. Wikipedians love their links and declare war on anyone who breaks them!!! :-) The solution is simple. Keep the page. Create disambigulation pages - including a short definitionary one. But 90% of the world will cope to this page looking to see an article on the Bishop of Rome, just as 90% will go to Paris to see about the French capital, etc. That is the deciding factor in deciding which gets the main page and which gets links from it. FearÉIREANN 02:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right... I realize that, I guess I'm not really suggesting a move anymore, but there should be an explanatory page somewhere. Check out the disambig, no text to it. --Dmcdevit 02:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wait, lemme clarify: While there is no point in moving this page as you say, this page could still be expanded to talk about Roman Catholic and Coptic, and any other variations all as subjects of the one article. --Dmcdevit 03:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There are other Popes living at the same time as the Catholic Pope, and how calling the Catholic Pope "THE POPE" holds with it tremendous POV, and it is quite offensive to millions of people. I need further clafication as to why what is now written under Pope should not be moved to Roman Catholic Pope, and why what is now at Pope (disambiguation) should not be moved to Pope. Kingturtle 18:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Forget the ego and cultural luggage: please, always think of the Wikipedia reader. When the average Wikipedia reader enters "Pope" (s)he should get the article commonly expected under "Pope". Wikipedia is a service, not a vehicle for grandstanding. --Wetman 18:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No you're taking it too far. When the common reader thinks of president, they usually want American president, but he/she finds a general article about the position as head of state. This is because the title has to correspond with the content. Here, the title, a general term, simply does not correspond to the content, specific information. So while we may not need to move the RC pope stuff, it should be along with general stuff about what any pope is and the information about other kinds of popes. --Dmcdevit 18:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Incorrect. When Americans think of 'president' they think of the US president. When French people think of President they think of the French president. Ditto in Ireland. In Spain the president is the prime minister of Spain. In the UK President could mean President of the Board of Trade. President is not identified worldwide with one officeholder with that title. Pope is. Over 2 billion Catholics, hundreds of millions of other Christians and billions of non-religious people worldwide think RC pontiff when they see pope. A tiny fraction think Coptic pope, etc. The wikipedia standard is simple. If one name is overwhelmingly identified with one office/person, etc then it gets the page, hence Paris meaning French capital, not the numerous other places calls Paris worldwide. Smaller minority interpretations get links from that page. So pope clearly means Roman Catholic pope. Other popes get specific pages on their own. If that policy is changed here then tens of thousands of pages here would then have to be changed and that is unworkable and illogical. Wikipedia policy of putting the major international understanding of the term on the main page is standard encyclopaedic standard. FearÉIREANNFlag of Ireland.svg\(talk) 22:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Right that's my point. I said the "common reader" thinks of American because most English Wikipedians are either American, or have a prime minister anyway (in which case you have to admit that people of the UK would most commonly think of US president). Now to apply your analogy, when Catholic people think of Pope they think of the Catholic pope. When Coptic people think of Pope, they think of the Coptic pope. Besides, isn't there ever a limit? Again, the content just doesn't correspond to the title. --Dmcdevit 23:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
You don't seem to have got it. People who live near Paris, New York probably think of that when you say "Paris" to them, but Paris is still at Paris because the vast majority of people think of the capital city of France when you say "Paris". The vast majority of people think of the head of the RCC when you say "the Pope". The vast majority of people do not think "US President" when you say "President" - I know I don't (and if you truly think they do, then you need some serious perspective). And it's supposed to work on "the vast majority of English speakers" (including English speakers in, say, India), not "pick a random Wikipedian and ask them". Proteus (Talk) 17:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
If Wikipedia was an American publication Dmcdevit might have some point. But it isn't. It is a world encyclopaedia read worldwide. So it is the concerns of readers worldwide that matter, not those in one country. Worldwide, 95% of people when they hear the word pope think of the Roman Catholic pope, just as worldwide 99% when the hear Paris think of the French capital. So the standard wikipedia practice here on this page as elsewhere is to put the major understanding on the main page, and a disambigulation link to other less widely known meanings, each of which have their own specialist meaning on their own pages. It is elementary, standard and correct wikipedia practice, and indeed standard encyclopaedia practice. FearÉIREANNFlag of Ireland.svg\(talk) 17:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
With news organizations, when they speak of particuarly important places they assume that their auidence knows what they're talking about. Take for example New York. In addition to the Big Apple, there are at least six other places in the United States with that name that are nowhere near New York State. Or Moscow, for example. You don't hear of that city as much as we used to during the time of the USSR. But still, when the news media says Moscow, over 90% of the time they mean Moscow, Russia, not Moscow, Iowa or any of the other places here in the United States named Moscow.
JesseG 18:33, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

PP stands for what?

Where does the information come from that PP stands for princeps pastorum? As far as I know it stands just for papa (pope). See also [1] gugganij 09:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

..."the "PP." standing for Papa ("Pope") or Pater Patrum ("Father of Fathers"),"Or maybe not. Might be worth looking it up. --Wetman 3 July 2005 05:59 (UTC)

P.P. used in the official signature of the Pope is pastor pastorum.
Here is the revelavant quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 [2] (which is in the public domain and available at the New Advent site) giving this title
It follows from the fact that he enjoys an ordinary pastoral authority, both legislative and judicial, and immediate in relation to its subjects. Moreover, since this power regards the pastors as well as the faithful, the pope is rightly termed Pastor pastorum, and Episcopus episcoporum.
Episcopus episcoporum is bishop of bishops.
Besides the Catholic Encyclopedia, you can seach Google for pastor pastorum Pope for more references. A printed source:
  • Bunson, Matthew. Pope Encyclopedia, The. (1995) New York: Crown Trade Publications ISBN 0-517-88256-6. (see page 261)
patsw 19:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not disputed that "Pastor pastorum" is among his titles. The question is what does "P.P." stand for. That is answered definitively in the Catholic Encycolpedia article gugganij cited above, where it says flat-out that "P.P." stands for "Papa". There's no need to go looking for another title with two Ps in it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

Would it be permissable to add in this article that it is still taught that "outside the Catholic Church exists no salvation" (defined by the Council of Florence) and "every creature must be united to the Roman Pontiff" (Boniface VIII)? The Second Vatican Council likewise reaffirms this, as well as several post-conciliar documents (Dominus Iesus, for example). Of course, I am aware that the truly invincibly ignorant do have some hopes of attaining salvation through the mercy of God.

It's permissible to add anything you like. The trick is writing it in such a way so that it remains there. Just keep it relevant to the article subject and NPOV and you should be fine. Csernica 18:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I made the title above into a link to the article on this subject. One sentence here, linking it, might be appropriate. A brief treatment might be more appropriate at Catholicism, with the italicized header Main article Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. --Wetman 20:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
...and I've added a subsection title ready for you to start with the Council of Florence and Pope Boniface VIII. There is currently nothing at that article on the history and development of Extra Ecclesiam. --Wetman 21:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the "villain" who removed the section ;-) I originally intended to write a comment on the talk page, but simply forgot it - sorry for that. I am not against including a section of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in the article, but I think the section deleted doesn't represent the RCC teaching properly:
Some examples:
Pope Pius IX. states in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moeror (1868): We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.
Pope John Paul II. in encyclical Redemptoris Missio: But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church.... For such people, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally a part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation
Source: [3]
Pope Boniface VIII's bull Unam sanctam and the Council of Florence's statements are PART of the tradition of the RCC, but they do not alone represent the tradition regarding this topic, therefore one should not ignore the other encyclicals/statements dealing with salvation outside the church. gugganij 28 June 2005 10:28 (UTC)

Adrian VI as a "German pope"

"...and Holland was not yet separated from Germany back then" - this is apropos Pope Adrian VI, born in Utrecht, pope 1522-23. Surely a better characterization of Adrian's "nationality" could be approximated than this. --Wetman 09:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Only the second non-Italian pope?

No, the statement is correct. After Adrian VI, until John Paul II, all the popes were Italian. And yes, popes have come from other areas previously and probably will again.Davescj 09:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this statement incorrect?

Pope Benedict XVI is the second non-Italian to be elected to the pontificate since Adrian VI, who was briefly pope in 1522-23, (John Paul II (pope 1978-2005) was the first)...

I don't claim to know everything about the Papacy, but I'm pretty sure there were plenty of non-Italian Popes. Even according to the List of popes, there have been more than two popes from outside of Italy. What about the time span when the curia resided in Avignon, France? There's even a List of French popes page.

--Nbeyer 01:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't say he was the second non-Italian pope ever, it says he was the second since 1523. That's perfectly accurate. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

A ruse

"In some quarters, it is felt that Benedict's election as pope is further evidence that the papacy is moving away from being an Italian-dominated institution." Some quarters indeed. Note the use of the passive of non-attribution. This non-statement is a ruse to draw attention from the undisputable fact that Ratzinger is a consummate insider, a politician whose previous career has been at the very heart of the Papal Curia. Any improvements to this would add welcome balance. --Wetman 23:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not a complete ruse. You will find the occasional article about the internationalization fo the papacy. But, to be honest, I don't think we will know one way or the other for a few more reigns.DaveTroy 21:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical government

A stub has been created on ecclesiastical government which needs definition and structure. A section on the Papacy would be very important. Please see talk page if any editors here would like to contribute. Comments welcome. WBardwin 23:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Please link to History of the Papacy which needs developing.

Jackiespeel 21:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Office and Nature

I cut the reference to the Pope of Alexandria's full title. It's really neither here nor there as far as the Pope of Rome goes, and in any event certainly doesn't merit such a prominent place in the present article, which is sufficiently lengthy without it. I can't even tell what the point was in mentioning it. Was it perhaps to show that the Pope of Rome is not the only ecclesiarch with a grandiose title? I don't think anyone doubted that anyway.

I gave priority to the "PP" of the Papal signature as standing for "Papa" since no official sources could confirm "Pastor Pastorum". That is undoubtedly among his titles, but that doesn't automatically mean that's what the abbreviation stands for, and the Catholic Encyclopedia comes down for "Papa". I didn't cut "Pastor Pastorum" completely only because this appears to be a broadly made claim -- one made without any official support that I could discern, but broadly nontheless. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Explaining my edit

I removed a section at the end called "Objections", and I feel I should explain my actions here. It provided links to two Seventh Day Adventist websites (three different links, actually, but two of them were to different parts of the same website). On one website, there were some articles on Mary, some on Islam, some on the Bible and Alcohol, and some on the Pope. It was not a website that really dealt with the Pope in any special way, so I couldn't see that it was significant enough to warrant being linked to in the article. The other website (two links) was full of sensational stuff about the Harlot Church, and the Pope being the Beast and the Antichrist, etc. I will admit that I'm not exactly anxious to have the Pope criticized(!), but I assure everyone that I understand Wikipedia policy, and would not attempt to remove scholarly, relevant criticism. This was not scholarly or relevant. Ann Heneghan (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggested sub-page

"Curiosities attached to the Pope" - eg the prophecies attached to Malachy, the list of items linking John Paul II and Leo XIII I had put on the coincidences page, other connections etc.

Jackiespeel 22:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What I meant with my comment (written in a hurry) was that there should be a page for Papacy-related facts that are not directly relevant to the Pope as office (Malachy is more in the Myths and legends section). I have started a Papal curiosities entry - if people wish to add statistics and other details to it.

Is this talk page long enough for an archive to be set up?

Jackiespeel 19:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If the article is deleted, move the coincidences section "somewhere": there is probably justification for a Papal statistics etc page (the dates and papal longivity etc)

Jackiespeel 21:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a "history of the Papacy" page - if so can a redirect be made onto that page from the quotes.

"Pope" and "papacy" come to this page, "popes" to List of Popes.

Jackiespeel 21:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Papal history

I have started History of the Papacy - please develop.

Parallel pages could be developed for other religious leaderships.

Jackiespeel 17:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Title Correction

The pope is not the patriarch of the Catholic Church. He is patriarch of the West. There are other Patriarchs in the Latin Church, but they have no authority as they do in the Easter Catholic Church.Davescj 09:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

John Paul II

as the longest reigning modern pope, should there not be a picture of JP2 somewhere on this page? Pellaken 03:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Is Pius IX not modern enough? He's only been dead for 128 years. Gentgeen 05:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) (yes, I know this was a really old question)