Talk:Pope/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Should be Francis I

Should be Francis I not just Francis. Sources have used the roman numeral!213.120.148.60 (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What was officially announced was "Francis". If and when there is a Pope Francis II, Pope Francis will become Pope Francis I. Esoglou (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This has already been extensively discussed on Talk:Pope Francis. The Vatican has clarified with news organisation that he is to be known as Francis and not Francis I. See also Vatican's own website where he is referred to as simply Francis. KTC (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite The Section ==Saint Peter and the origin of the office==

Catholics believe that this passage shows Jesus establishing his church on the shoulders of Simon son of John (Peter). Some authorities have previously asserted that the "rock" Jesus referred to was Jesus himself or was Peter's faith. The general scholarly consensus is that this account is accurate, and one modern scholar agrees with the straightforward interpretation that the "rock" Jesus refers to in this passage is Peter.[1]

This section is more than SLIGHTLY biased. It makes it sound like no one challenges this position and as though the CATHOLIC consensus is the only consensus on the topic. This is not the consensus of ANY PROTESTANTS, which are a much larger portion of the world than catholics. One citation does not cover the general consensus. Nor does one citation represent a stout and unified objection by a mass of people which does form a consensus. Kyle Mullaney

As a protestant who personally does not believe that Peter was ever in a position anything like Pope, I have no problem with an encyclopedia article about the Catholic Church office of Pope explaining the Catholic Church's position/belief about how said office was established. There are many articles about various aspects of different religious groups which explain that group's beliefs; it does not necessarily mean that other groups also subscribe to the same beliefs. I don't see that it needs to be changed. LarryJeff (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
First off, over half of all Christians are Catholic, so protestants are in no way any sort of larger portion of the world than Catholics. Second, there are numerous protestant scholars who do believe that the rock refers to Peter. In fact, I would say that they are the majority among even Protestants. But that's beside the point as this presents the Catholic belief as the Catholic belief. It begins with "Catholics believe...". Farsight001 (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The point is that when the two greek words that denote a rock in this passage are used together it is clear that petros is the smaller and generally used as a smallish stone that could be held in the hand where as the other denotes a much larger stone. I have no problem with the statement that the catholic church claims that Peter is such and such so long as the proper exegesis is there to show that it is not FACT it is false interpretation and should not be called true or left as appearing to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle.Mullaney (talkcontribs) 15:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ O'Connor, Daniel William (27 November 2009), "Saint Peter the Apostle", Encyclopædia Britannica, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today .

I only recently learned - through web comments - that Catholics are convinced that when Jesus was telling Peter that He (Jesus) was making Peter the head of the church.....Jesus was making Peter the head of the Catholic church. I was stunned when I read the first comment that stated that (and used the Bible as confirmation). I found myself rereading that commenter's sentence twice just to make certain I had read it right -- I HAD !....that's when I was stunned, realizing yet ANOTHER lie the Catholic church has been telling its believers (I have read about a number of mis-information "facts" that the Catholic church apparently has its followers convinced of - that are also nowhere in the Bible. In fact, I question that the Catholics have their OWN version of the Bible......why can't they simply use the regular, "protestant" version ? makes me wonder what ELSE the Catholic church changed - in THEIR Bible version).

First, when Jesus was telling Peter that He (Jesus) was making Peter the head of the church - Jesus was NOT talking about the Catholic church (which was not even started until at least hundreds of years later).....Jesus was making Peter the head of the early Christian church (which was composed of Gentiles, a few Greeks, a few believing Hebrews - although most of the Hebrews rejected Jesus as the Messiah), which at that time existed ONLY in the Holy Land (during Jesus' ministry/Crucifixion/Resurrection, and shortly afterward, until Jesus' disciples (and other early Christians) started spreading the Good News (aka Gospel) outside of the Holy Land).

Second, there is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible saying Jesus was making Peter the head of the CATHOLIC church. The word "Catholic" is nowhere in the Bible, and as I have already noted, the early Christian church was NOT the start of the Catholic church. THAT particular "established" form of Christianity would not be even formed yet until much later, and AFTER the news of Jesus's life, Crucifixion and Resurrection spread eastward through Cappadocia and THEN went northwestward into post-Roman Italy.

Thus, I would suggest that the section subtitled "St. Peter and the origin of the pope" be changed to confirm the Jesus was NOT telling Peter that Peter was the head of the Catholic church, but that Jesus was telling Peter that he was to be the head of the early Christian (non-Catholic / PRE-Catholic) church).

My sources: any world history book, but especially, the New American Standard translation of the Bible (I use the NAV because it uses more contemporary language, but the message is not changed, and per my previous Senior Pastor, theologians have compared the various translations against the original Hebrew scrolls.....and the NAV is the CLOSEST to those scrolls. In fact, my pastor told us that the NAV matches almost EXACTLY "word-for-word" what the Hebrew scrolls say in each of the original biblical scrolls. That's proof enough for me, that I have the best translation.

Gail Noon, 03/16/2013 (69.224.46.135 (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC))

I think you are confusing the Wikipedia article's summary of Catholic doctrines with an essay on whether those doctrines fit someone's notion about truth. The purpose of this article is to summarize Catholic positions on the papacy as well as any disagreements among other major Christian religions, all properly verified with reliable sources. The article is not a place for you, me, or anyone to try to argue our personal beliefs about the papacy. There are lots of blogs and other forums where you might better spend your time espousing your personal beliefs. To understand how Wikipedia works, you might begin by reading WP:5P and continue clicking the blue links to various policy pages. Also please read WP:FORUM. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about Pope Francis as Incumbent

I'm just wondering is it appropriate to put Pope Francis as the incumbent? I mean yes he has been elected Pope and Habemus Papam has been declared but technically and legally speaking he hasn't taken office yet so wouldn't the office of the Pope still be Sede Vacante until his inaugural mass on March 19. I mean having him listed as incumbent would be like listing Barack Obama as President of the United States before he was officially sworn in. IMHO until such time as he is officially inaugurated I would like to suggest that he be listed as Francis I, Pope-Elect. What does everyone else think? TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Church law is different from United States law. He is Pope from the moment he accepted his election, even before he was announced publicly with "Habemus papam" (We have a pope), not "Habebimus papam" (We shall have a pope). Esoglou (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks I see your point. Beside that its just a moot point now anyway. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"The pope is the antichrist" - Martin Luther

"Protestant Reformers criticized the papacy as corrupt and characterized the pope as the antichrist...", whoa that's a bold statement to make without any source to back it up! But then, the writers of wikipedia are all highly objective and not at all biased, so I think it can be taken at face value. 151.15.41.235 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, here you go: http://books.google.ca/books?id=hLxDnAMaUgQC&pg=PA141&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=antichrist&f=false. Martin Luther himself believed and taught that the papacy was itself the antichrist. It is in his writings and has been discussed in many other historical texts . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.136.53 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Are they Catholic? No, they were heretics. I'm removing the "Antichrist" pictures as they dont belong here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.112.152 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit requested

The last line of the lede says "The first explicit such occasion (after the proclamation), and so far the last, was the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in 1950." Wouldn't it be more concise and less confusing to just say "The only explicit such occasion after the proclamation was the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in 1950." 67.164.156.42 (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Done I consider this a minor edit. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit requested 2

The last line of the lede mentions the Assumption of Mary but doesn't link to it. Please change this to link to the appropriate article. Philapathy (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 May 2013

The first reference to Annuario Pontificio in the first line of Official list of titles should be italicized. Philapathy (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Done Esoglou (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Cranach woodcut caption

The recently added source says: "The slides below show Catholic art and the so called statue, supposedly of Peter that is located in St. Peter's at Rome. What we want you to notice is that the statue, and the art depicting the Christ has their two fingers extended. This sign has the same meaning as the two pillars which are, Apostolic Succession and Temporal Power!" The slides in fact show three fingers (including the thumb) extended. More reliable sources say that the three fingers extended upward symbolize faith in the Trinity (First Council of Nicaea) and the two fingers that are bent downward symbolize faith in the two natures of Christ (Council of Chalcedon). Examples of such sources are The Sign of the Cross and The Latin Gesture of Benediction. What was cut off the hand of dead Pope Formosus at the infamous Cadaver Synod were three fingers, not two, and the papal blessing with three fingers (including the thumb) is even mentioned in the Three Musketeers!

But in fact it is out of place to mention either two fingers or three in the caption of the Lucas Cranach woodcut (which does not show the thumb). The woodcut is about kissing the pope's foot, not about the number of fingers the pope is holding upward. Esoglou (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I think it should be re-phrased to be about kissing the foot, not the # of fingers extended. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Addendum-- I see it's already revised. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Celestine IV

This list of shortest-reigning popes says that Pope Celestine IV died before consecration. So does his article. This is unclear though: what kind of consecration would he have had? He was already a bishop. He could not be a valid pope before being consecrated bishop and he already held a see as Cardinal-Bishop for several years before his election. The sources online don't say anything about consecration, just that he died after 17 days. Elizium23 (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The word "consecration" may be inappropriate, but someone becomes pope immediately when he accepts after his election. He was a valid pope. Cresix (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Except for someone who is not yet a bishop. The office of Pope is Bishop of Rome, and a man who accepts the election is not yet Pope until he is consecrated a bishop, which is to be done immediately. Elizium23 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Correct, and as you noted, Celestine IV was a bishop at the time of his election, so he was pope immediately upon his acceptance. I changed the word "consecration" to "coronation". Cresix (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the change by Cresix, because Celestine IV undoubtedly died before being crowned. It might be better to omit entirely the comment "died before coronation/consecration". There are sources that say he did die before consecration, presumably taking it that, though he had been appointed Bishop of Sabina, he had never received episcopal ordination. Take this source and this and this and this. A perhaps more authoritative source says his death before consecration is doubtful. The remarks by editors above are about present-day canon law, which is slightly different even from pre-Vatican-II canon law, which gave the person elected pope full power of supreme jurisdiction (even if without full power of holy orders) from the moment he accepted his election (see canon 219 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law), with no mention of the present-day requirement that he be given immediate episcopal ordination before his election is announced. The canon law of 752, on the other hand, made consecration the beginning of the pontificate (see Pope-elect Stephen). What was canon law at the time Pope Celestine IV was elected? I don't know. And since there are two easy ways of dealing with the problem (Cresix's and simple omission of the comment), I think an effort to find out would not be worthwhile. Esoglou (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
That is a simple answer. Look at Stephen in 752, who died before his episcopal consecration. He is not considered a valid pope. The office of Pope has always been Bishop of Rome. Even before it was called Pope. That is not something that changes with the laws on the books. By the way, papal elections are governed by papal bull and apostolic constitution, which are not part of the Code of Canon Law. Elizium23 (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Not to belabor this issue, and I cannot claim to have significant expertise about these matters, but I have never had the impression that the details of papal election and enthronement can't be codifed in canon law. That's not to say that the current pope cannot make changes (as recent popes have), but is it true that there are no canon laws that address these issues? If the statements at Canon law (Catholic Church)#Canon Law "Corpus" are correct, apostolic constitutions are considered a part of canon law. Cresix (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That is why I said they are not part of the Code. Esoglou's quote of the 1917 CIC does not reflect the whole of conclave and election legislation. Elizium23 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Elizium23 deservedly has my full respect. I therefore greatly regret that on this question I must disagree with him. The norms of the Code of Canon Law on papal elections do govern papal elections until abrogated or modified by subsequent legislation, whether by apostolic constitution or in any other way. What the 1917 Code of Canon Law laid down as the moment when a person became pope held good until 1 October 1975. Far from being abrogated, it was, one could say, strengthened by Pope Pius XII in his apostolic constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis: "101. Hoc consensu praestito intra terminum, quatenus opus sit, prudenti arbitrio Cardinalium per maiorem votorum numerum determinandum, illico electus est verus Papa, atque actu plenam absolutamque iurisdictionem supra totum orbem acquirit et exercere potest." This document cites the 1917 Code of Canon Law but, as I said, uses stronger language by stating that, on giving his consent, the person elected "immediately is true Pope and thereupon acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world". In fact, Pius XII was only repeating in exactly the same words what his predecessor Pius X laid down in 1904 with the apostolic constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica: "88. Hoc consensu praestito intra terminum, quatenus opus sit, prudenti arbitrio Cardinalium per maiorem votorum numerum determinandum, illico electus est verus Papa, atque actu plenam absolutamque iurisdictionem supra totum orbem acquirit et exercere potest."
It was only on 1 October 1975 that Pope Paul VI changed the law, laying down in his apostolic constitution Romano Pontifici eligendo that (to quote an English version of the document), "88. After his acceptance, the person elected, if he be a bishop, is straightway bishop of Rome, true pope, and head of the episcopal college. He possesses and can exercise full and supreme power over the universal Church. If, however, the elected person does not possess the episcopal character, he is to be immediately ordained a bishop." Pope Paul VI's change of the law was incorporated into the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which is what now holds, since in this respect it has not yet been modified: "Can. 332 §1 The Roman Pontiff acquires full and supreme power in the Church when, together with episcopal consecration, he has been lawfully elected and has accepted the election. Accordingly, if he already has the episcopal character, he receives this power from the moment he accepts election to the supreme pontificate. If he does not have the episcopal character, he is immediately to be ordained Bishop."
What grounds are there for saying that the law governing papal elections at the time of Celestine IV, was the post-1975 law and not the pre-1975 law? Remember the statement of the Annuario Pontificio quoted in Pope-elect Stephen: "On the death of Zachary the Roman priest Stephen was elected; but, since he died four days later and before his consecratio, which according to the canon law of the time was the true commencement of his pontificate, his name is not registered in the Liber Pontificalis nor in other lists of the popes" (bolding added). The canon law at the time of Pope-elect Stephen was clearly different from pre-1975 canon law. Canon law concerning the moment of "true commencement of the pontificate" has in fact changed over the centuries, whether we like it or not. What was the law at the time of Celestine IV? Esoglou (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
A priest has informed me about the reality of pre-1975 Canon Law. Canon 219 says "Romanus Pontifex..." which is explicitly referring to a bishop and only a bishop: PONTIFF is a bishop; i.e. a Pontifical Mass is one celebrated by a bishop. So episcopal ordination has always been required for jurisdiction. The office is Bishop of Rome. It is not possible to hold this office, have jurisdiction, or any power without benefit of episcopal ordination. Elizium23 (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Under the previous rules promulgated by Pope St. Pius X in 1904, if the one elected was not a priest or bishop, he was to be "ordained" a priest and "consecrated" a bishop. Blessed (soon to be Saint) John Paul II specifically changed that to say that he is immediately ordained a bishop. There are 2 changes here:

  1. He eliminated the requirement to be "ordained a priest" before bishop
  2. He specifically says "ordained" a bishop, not "consecrated" a bishop.

Here is the 1904 Conclave rule 90. Quod si electus nondum sit Presbyter vel Episcopus, a Decano Collegii Cardinalium ordinabitur et consecrabitur http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/vacante.htm

Elizium23 (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The 1917 canon says: "Romanus Pontifex, legitime electus, statim ab acceptata electione ..." If he is not yet a bishop, he is at that point Bishop-elect of Rome (Romanus Pontifex electus), not yet Bishop of Rome. Yet, although only a bishop-elect, he immediately (statim) has by divine law (iure divino), not by grant of any earthly authority, full power of supreme jurisdiction (plenam supremae iurisdictionis potestatem).
The Pius X document states that, immediately (illico) on giving his assent, the person elected (electus) is true Pope (verus Papa) and acquires and can exercise jurisdiction over the whole world (88). After this, his election is announced (89). After this, if he is not a priest or bishop, he is ordained and consecrated (90). And after this he is crowned (91).
(Before the Second Vatican Council, "consecration" was perhaps the only word used of becoming a bishop, doubtless because some claimed the episcopate was not a distinct order from the presbyterate: they spoke of "seven" holy orders: the four minor orders and the three major (subdiaconate, diaconate and priesthood). Today both "ordination" and "consecration" are used of becoming a bishop. Canon law made a strong distinction between the powers of orders and those of jurisdiction.) Esoglou (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
This is extraordinary information which flies in the face of my limited knowledge of Christian governance. Surely this would have been controversial enough in its time, to warrant reporting by reliable secondary sources on the fact that a layman, or even a mere priest could have ordinary, immediate and supreme jurisdiction over all the Christian faithful? Surely even some anti-Catholic sources would have commented that the Catholics raise non-clergy to incredible heights without even the benefit of ordination? We are doing our own WP:OR here interpreting Canon Law. I have been told by a priest and by a Franciscan major superior that my view is correct. But no WP:RS have been provided on either side. Elizium23 (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I am sure you know that Wikipedia accepts citations of primary sources for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". So both the 1904 Pius X document and the 1917-1973 Code are reliable sources for the statement that, under those rules, a man elected pope was immediately, on acceptance of his election, "true pope" and immediately had universal power of governance/jurisdiction. If these are not enough for you, will you accept the exact same statement in a book of the time or this less clear one? The persons you consulted and who may have been thinking of present canon law are not, in Wikipedia terms, reliable sources. You may find helpful the explanation given in the book I have cited here. It says that, as regards the power of holy orders, the pope has no more power than any titular bishop (in partibus infidelium was the expression of the time) who is governing no territory: the difference lies in the power of jurisdiction. Similarly, it says, a vicar apostolic who was not a bishop had the same governance powers for his territory as a bishop had for his own. Esoglou (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for those sources. That is satisfying. I am told that the reason for that legislation in 1904 was Papal conclave, 1903 - Pius X's own election. He wanted to make sure that a validly elected Pope was never again impeded or vetoed. Perhaps the law was not abolished in 1975 as we thought, but is merely implicit now? Elizium23 (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please check the facts as easily found in primary sources

The historic creeds uniformly define the "catholic church" as the "body of Christ" without ever mentioning Rome or the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome is head of the Roman Catholic Church by historic and accurate definition, and no one disputes that. God bless him.

However, to state in a body of knowledge consulted by millions as fact that the Roman Bishop is head of "the catholic church" leaves over a billion Christians of the Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, and many other denominations of the one holy catholic and apostolic church as non-Christians. By the creeds and the canon itself, you are either catholic or not a Christian as there is only one church. The case for this is so clear in history and theology I am simply not going to re-fight this battle.

The Bishop of Rome heads a massive, vibrant, and historic denomination, but he is not now nor was he ever head of the "catholic church." That title belongs only to Jesus Christ, head of the church, and the Author of our salvation or the whole thing is a fantasy.

I request the addition of "Roman" to the lead line in the interest of historic accuracy and objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.155.115 (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Church means Catholic Church, not a Church that is Catholic. Feel free to look at the hundreds of copies of this exact same discussion in the archives and the archives of Talk:Catholic Church. Achowat (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

infallibility

The introduction said that the assumption was the only explicitly infallible statement since Vatican I but there are others although the popes did not choose the exact language that pius xii did. Both Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis include statements made with such authority that, were they ever reversed, would seriously call into question any claims to Papal infallibility. This old "only immaculate conception and assumption were infallible" thing is a bit of false trivia. Ratzinger wrote on this in his capacity at CDF when people asked why JPII did not use "official" language in his clearly-intended-to-be-infallible statement in OS that only men can be priests. There is nothing official about pius xii's language. It was just pius xii's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qowieury (talkcontribs) 23:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

While some of these statements are inexact or perhaps I should say imprecise, I see no need to undo the related edit nor therefore any need to discuss them. Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Name Heart

Why is there a <3 next to the pope's name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.48.171.116 (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Gradual Increase in Power

So this article makes no mention of the fact that the papacy grew in power and influence over centuries, rather than being "suddenly" powerful in 1871 as the article seems to indicate, and neither does it say anything about the Bishop of Rome competing with other bishoprics for power and influence until they were the only ones left.

Separately, I notice in the archives of talk that this article (in the opinion of some) seems to suffer from a lack of neutral point of view. Makes me wonder if anything can be done about that, since those that care about their own point of view seem to dominate. Just wanting to note this for the record. I don't expect anything to change because of this post. Hires an editor (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Antichrist Section

What the hell is this batshittery? Who's the "we," and why is this paragraph part of this article?

43. As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12;`1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist "as God sitteth in the temple of God", 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ's sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation—these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is "the very Antichrist." (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.229.150 (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It is the aforementioned "Brief Statement" of the Lutheran churches which is discussed in the prior paragraph. However, it is WP:UNDUE emphasis on a relatively long quote and so I have removed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Elizium23 (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Extended discussion of the emergence of monoepiscopacy is not really relevant

There's a long section discussing how monoepiscopacy emerged, but it's not really relevant to the PAPACY as such. Maybe it needs to be shortened - or separated out as context with a separate heading? Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually this issue is very relevant, as the papacy appears to be the culmination of a tendency to centralize power. In the NT there are always plural bishops/elders in a city church, whenever the situation is explained. We see a tendency to develop monarchal bishop with Diotrephes of 3 John, who loved to have the pre-eminence. The papacy appears to the end of a chain of development: plural bishops > monarchal bishop > patriarch > pope, with the title of pope coming only hundreds of years after Pentecost. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC))

Deletion of Claim That Protestants Agree on a Focus on Peter

I deleted that statement, as it was supported only by a citation from a RCC source. It also is obviously false. Protestants don't agree on much of anything at all. They are split on traditional denominational lines as well as crosswise into Biblicists and evangelicals vs liberals/modernists. In a given denomination there will be drastic differences of opinion on practically everything also. Some want to bless men lying with men by a wedding ceremony. Others abominate it. Some have women in authority, others oppose it. Some believe the Bible is God's Word, others reject it. Some think Jesus is God, for others he is a good teacher. Protestants do not agree in any primacy of Peter. Some may, some may not. This varies across denominations and in denominations. Starting out a sentence claiming that "Most Protestants agree that" can be deleted without reading any further. And BTW, there are also big differences between those who are independent of all denominations, not being either Protestant or Catholic. And RCC persons likewise have big disagreements between each other. For example, the USA Supreme Court is Roman Catholic, and it endorses baby-murder. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC))

Hello?

In the section Monarchical episcopate, what does the information presented have to do with the caption? It does not mention monarchy. Wouldn't this better apply to a section re the Papal States? If it means to suggest some pre-eminence of status, than perhaps another phrase would be clearer. Mannanan51 (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


Correction for external links to Catholic.com

Dear Wiki Admin, In the write protected article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope Can you please fix the existing broken links in the External links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#External_links

Broken links

The correct links are listed below

End of correction

Please also review my article which includes solid references to scriptures and vast compelling references to the early church all before 400AD.

http://www.4unity.net/the-bishop-of-rome/ Please include this in the external links page

With Thanks Daniel Skilling Dskilli (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yellow check.svg Partly done: I corrected the existing links. I didn't bother to include your article, but if someone else wants to that's fine. Elizium23 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)