Talk:Pope Pius IX

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

German/Austrian War in 1866 equals Austerlitz?[edit]

I was unsure what to title this so I just decided to write something quick despite the fact that it was sarcastic. It appears that in the section Papacy/Policies/Germany, it is written that,

Decisive military victories of Prussia against all German States and Austria in Austerlitz in 1866

I believe the reference to Austerlitz is incorrect.

If my understanding of the text is correct it is trying to reference the decisive battle of the Seven Week War inbetween Austria and Prussia in 1866. If my memory is correct it should be the Battle of Königgrätz.

But my memory might be faulty and hence my notation of this on the talk page instead of just editing it myself.

Gottesmm (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Pope Pius 9[edit]

I changed it from IX to 9. You're welcome. Bhairava2 06:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ullysses Grant[edit]

"In 1858...Edgardo Mortara was taken from his parents...President Ulysses S. Grant of the USA [asked Pius] to return the child to his parents."

Please clarify: Grant was president from 1869 through 1877. JHCC 14:21, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that James Buchanan refused to protest to the Pope; I seem to recall that David Kertzer's book said so. Buchanan was incessantly bombarded with letters from foreign heads of state (and many other persons, both foreign and domestic) incessantly protesting against the injustice of slavery then practiced in the United States, and he was in no mood to protest to foreign heads of state about injustices in their countries. Perhaps Grant did protest, 11 years after Edgardo Mortara's abduction. Michael Hardy 16:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe vandalism has taken place. Or maybe something just got messed up. I'm changing it back to the previous version. Paul 08:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How did Pius IX ...[edit]

... "re-establish the church in England in 1850"? It was not then nor is it now the Established Church there; that would be the Church of England. Surely it is not being contended that Catholicism had at some prior point vanished in England for a while; that would be ludicrous. So just what did he do with regard to England in 1850? I'm not going to edit just yet, but ask that someone explain this to me before I do. Rlquall 11:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He reestablished the hierarchy. john k 15:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

yeah erm Catholic Emancipation Act i think it was in 1829 i don't really know nething about these things but before then the whole structure of RC clergy in Britain was a bit dodgy n pio nono just restored it 03:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a bad time to be Catholic in England following Henry VIII's establishment of his Anglican Church. By the time of Elizabeth I, according to the entry, the last bishop had died, and due to issues of apostolic succession it would follow that the Church would need to be 're-established' even though there was undoubtedly a Catholic presence in the country. Think of it like reclaiming a garden that had fallen to weeds, and putting it back in order.

  • I think there is confusion between "Establishment" (upper case "E") and "establishment" (lower case.) The former has the implied meaning of being established as the official State Religion, where as in the later "establishment" is used in its normal meaning, i.e. being set up or founded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ferdinand's Veto[edit]

Anyone have any more information on Ferdinand's veto? would the veto have had any ecclesiastical authority? (from the Austrian Emperor as the sucessor of the Holy Roman Emperor?) or would it just be the fact that the cardinals were made aware that (one of) the most powerful ruler(s) of Europe disapproved of the choice of Pius and that therefore it might be wise politically to honor that opinion? and was it actually Ferdinand's veto? seeing how his only coherrent imperial command was "I want dumplings" (or something to that effect). anyway, i have all these questions and would love some info YggdrasilsRoot 18:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, possibly the veto would have had success, in 1903 the Cardinal of Cracow Jan Puzyna vetoed preemptively the possible election of Cardinal Rampolla to be Pope(at this moment, the Cardinal Rampolla had a relative, not an absolute majority of votes) upon the advice of (his) Emperor, Francis Joseph I. of Austria (who ruled from 1848 to 1916, als successor of Ferdinand).
Indeed, the Cardinal Sarto was instead of Rampolla elected Pope(Pope Pius X).
In fact, I think that Ferdinand couldn't care less of the papal election(more or less), Prince Metternich as leader of the Austrian Foreign Policy (upon which Ferdinand had actually no influence due to the strong position of Metternich, who was Foreign Minister since 1809) was responsible for the veto(I will change this in the article since there's no doubt).
Metternich was furious when he heard the news of the election of Pius IX, who was known for his liberal ideas("A liberal pope, that's the most egregious thing I can imagine") - but, later on, when Pius IX changed his views completely (due to the Revolution of 1848 when he had to escape from Rome), he got one of the most reliable allies of the Empire of Austria. 22:05, 22 August 2005
This kind of veto is called the "right of exclusion", enjoyed at that time by Austria, France and Spain. See Papal election or the Catholic Encyclopedia. Jastrow 19:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Pius IX and Jeff Davis[edit]

Any verification for this? Particularly this line: During the ensuing correspondence between the two, Pope Pius ensured that he always referred to President Davis as "His Excellency, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America." This would connote diplomatic recognition, which Pius assuredly did not give.

I cannot find any verification for these claims, and so I feel that they should be deleted.
I have seen the crown of thorns in the Confederate War Museum here in New Orleans with my own eyes. It is by no means miniature, it is life-size, and the thorns are about 2 inches long and look wicked. The crown is attached to a framed picture of Pius IX. I am deleting the word "miniature in the main article. LafcadioHearn (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This section is not NPOV; the very omission of a crucial fact makes this article biased and contradictory to similar wiki-pages. With the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, the Union made abolition of slavery a war goal, in addition to reunion. When The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime, on April 8 1864. The Holy Office of Pope Pius IX: Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. The Vatican, especially pope Pius IX, strained their relationship with the USA and gave the anti-catholic sentiment a concrete plate form. President Abraham Lincoln reflecting on the Civil War wrote: “This war would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to Popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons. Though there were great differences of opinion between the South and North, on the question of slavery, neither Jeff Davis nor any one of the leading men of the Confederacy would have dared to attack the North, had they not relied on the promise of the Jesuits, that, under the mask of Democracy, the money and the arms of the Roman Catholics, even the arms of France, were at their disposal if they would attack us.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunyachica83 (talkcontribs) 14:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


In the first paragraph: "Pope for a record pontificate (not counting the Apostle St. Peter)"

Ik read about the Apostle St. Peter but I am not sure how long his pontificate was. If nobody is sure I would like to remove "(not counting the Apostle St. Peter)".

In any case, many scholars would dispute whether the Apostle Peter could be termed a Pope. Gaz 27-6-06

According to Catholic Church tradition, St. Peter was in Rome for 25 years. In retrospect, he is viewed as having been the first "Bishop of Rome" and the first "Pope," although the offices of "bishop" and "pope" had not yet been created. Italus 6 November 2006

This should stay in, as it

  • makes clear that Peter is taking out of the running
  • doesn't affirm or deny whether Peter can be termed Pope (and this is not about scholars)
  • doesn't hinge on the length of Peter's pontificate - which BTW would amount to between 37 and 31 years, depending on the dates of the crucifixion of Jesus (30-33) and Peter respectively (64-67).

Str1977 (smile back) 13:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

St. Peter was the first Pope but never the Bishop of Rome, he was the Patriarch of Antioch. The first Bishop of Rome, according to ancient sources, was Linus. It was only when he succeded Peter that the centre of the Church moved from Jerusalem to Rome , and the Bishops of Rome became synonymous with Popes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


I believe that the use of Blessed before the name of Pop Pius IX in the introduction is an opinion and not necessarily a fact. I will remove this if there are no objections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elfsareus (talkcontribs). 13:53, 21 December 2006

It doesn't belong in the lead for sure. People just keep on re inserting that word. Thanks for removing it. Garion96 (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly longest-reigning?[edit]

"allegedly making him the longest-reigning Pope since the Apostle St. Peter"

How can he be allegedly longest-reigning? Is there some doubt as to when he began his reign or when he died? Shinhan 06:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The doubt concerns the length of Peter's reign. --Wetman 09:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I came here following a link in the John Paul II article that said John Paul II reign "was the second-longest documented pontificate; only Pope Pius IX served longer." This article says Pope Pius IX was the "second longest-reigning elected Pope in Church history." I don't think Peter was an elected pope. I'm going to remove the word "second" from the introduction. SlowJog (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, since all sources agree that Peter was not elected to the office. Majoreditor (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Something is queer in the section Liberalism and conservatism. Either Pius IX once was "liberal", or he wasn't. It seems odd to me that a general amnesty is an indication that he was liberal, since a humanitarian conservative as well as a humanitarian socialist (which he provenly wasn't) may announce a general amnesty. Beside the general amnesty, there's no indication of liberalism in his acts. Early life and ministry says the political world perceived him as liberal. That's OK, but the text on him shouldn't assume he really was a liberal, unless there are qualified citations for this. My personal reflection on this guy (which shouldn't be used in this encyclopedia): "he was probably a dialectic idealist, conservative with a clear streak of humanitarianism". Said: Rursus 06:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your assessment is probably true enough, but Pius was certainly initially seen as/believed to be a liberal. I heard a BBC radio program earlier claiming he had links or was known to be sympathetic to the risorgimento prior to becoming pope. Possibly being at the sharp end of it in 1848 made for a road to damascus-type conversion. Either way he started out in '46 with a reputation for liberalism and ended up with a reputation as an archconservative.--thor 23:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Post-revolutionary South America[edit]

It’s not obvious to me what ‘post-revolutionary South America’ means, and probably won’t be any clearer to many of our readers. Could somebody gloss and/or wikilink it, please? —Ian Spackman 20:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this in Wikiproject: Saints?[edit]

Pius IX has not been canonised. Is someone thinking of Pius X? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jhobson1 (talkcontribs) 23:56, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

John Paul II beatified him. (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Piedmont or Sardinia[edit]

There needs to be a single policy on naming Piedmont/Sardinia as the current section on the end of the papal states contains both, with no suggestion that they are one and the same.--thor 23:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PiusIXCOA.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:PiusIXCOA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Open Legs"[edit]

There is a reference the fact that this codger suffered from "open legs". I take it that this not meant to infer that he spread 'em for all comers round the Vatican given the predilection thereabouts for boys rather than elderly men. Should this be changed to "Restless legs syndrome" which blokes of his vintage are more likely to suffer from? Albatross2147 (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I have several Pius IX biographies and will ckeck it out in the next few days--Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be "open sores on his legs". In any event I strongly doubt he was sexually promiscuous - although "open legs" usually applies to women. --NellieBly (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and other problems[edit]

Even a hagiography can have regard for objectivity. Pius IX should be considered in his lifetime context but an editor should be cautious of using old sources that represent the church's official view of a subject. Long dead Catholic partisans, even with the most honorable intentions, are not the best sources to establish the proper historical place of Pius IX.

Under WP guidelines, the opening paragraph should give:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and
2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death);
3. Nationality –
1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the talk page and archives.)
2. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.
4. What the person did;
5. Why the person is significant.

In this article on Sept 4/08, the opening paragraph goes way beyond. --Interactbiz (Norm, Vancouver Canada) (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is correct, as most leading figures and Popes here have summaries like this one. You questioned his popularity at the time: this is disputable, unsourced opinion I added contemporary sources, which you now dispute, because they are contemporary. I am afraid, regarding his popularity, you have to use contemporary sources, not TIME Magazine of 2008. Facts, even unsourced opinions from newspaper articles like TIME are okay, but they do not substitute for real scholarship and genuine existing reasearch, more of which from all sides of the spectrum this article could benefit from. Cheers --Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of edits that were aimed at providing improved balance and original sources[edit]

Attention: AMBROSIUS007

I believe this article has not reflected a neutral point of view so I submitted edits aimed at improving neutrality and reflecting modern sources of commentary about Pius IX. I had only addressed a few issues of many that need attention. Historical understanding evolves. Nineteenth century religion writers should not be the exclusive or primary sources of content in WP.

You are ignoring Wikipedia policies in your changes to and reversion of my edits. Obviously you prefer to include positive views of Pius IX and I respect that. However, this forum is intended to represent multiple points of view. For example, the issue of beatification of Pius IX was highly controversial and you removed verifiable, accurate, sourced discussion of that issue, restoring wording that was an apologia.

I added links to old documents that have been made available in complete form on the internet because copyright has expired. You removed those. Surely the original is a better source than your interpretation of it.

"Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines can be summarized as five pillars that define the character of the project. I repeat them. See also WP: Help:Reverting.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL.

Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 2,546,000 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. Remember, whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity."

--Interactbiz (Norm, Vancouver Canada) (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourced material is welcome of course. What is less desirable, if sourced material is erased without explanation or even replaced with unsourced materials. There is also a quality aspect to be considered. Scholarly books are simply superior to newspaper articles or cut and pastes from other websites. Wikipedia policies are clear, what lead sections should and should not entail, for example, lengthy quotes, which do not show up in the main text itself:

The lead section, lead, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a concise overview. It should establish the context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article

When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves.

Well-publicized recent events affecting an article subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each. When an article subject dies, the lead does not need to be radically reworked. Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing it is usually sufficient.

Keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronised[edit]

Sometimes editors will add details to a summary section without adding those facts to the more detailed article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section. In other cases, the detailed article may grow considerably in scope, and the summary section will need to be re-written to do it justice. These problems may be tagged with {{Sync}}".--Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Archdioceses/Dioceses in the USA[edit]

This paragraph, especially with its existing wikilinks, is completely confusing to someone who just happened on this page with no fore-knowledge.

Pius IX is the father of much of the modern American Church structure by creating most existing dioceses and archdioceses in the USA. Since 1846 he elevated Oregon to be an archdioceses [sic], New York,(with Boston Hartford, Albany and Buffalo); Cleveland, Ohio, Providence, Rhode Island, St. Louis, (with Dubuque, Chicago, Milwaukee, Quincy, Missouri and Santa Fe) , St. Paul (Minnesota), Wheeling and Savannah (under Baltimore), Burlington, Portland (under Boston ) Newark, Brooklyn, Long Island (under New York), San Francisco and Detroit, Michigan. He also founded Episcopal seats on Fort Wayne, St. Joseph, Missouri, Scranton, Pennsylvania, St. Augustine, Florida, Columbus NC, and Wilmington Delaware. [37] Pius supported Diocesan synods and regular meetings and granted all wishes of the American bishops regarding enlargements of their rights and privileges. In 1849, he politely turned down an invitation to visit the USA. [38]

For instance, Quincy, Missouri - makes more sense if its Quincy, Illinois. And which Portland? Would someone knowledgeable about the dioceses/archdiocese get these links to make sense? Thanks. --Tesscass (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank's I partly agree with you and will work on it tomorrow! Some of the combinations did make sense in the USA of 1850 but not today. The Wiki links need to be checked one by one. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response. I don't have the source, so don't know what any of this means. However, maybe linking to the dioceses/archdoceses page would make more sense than to the cities? --Tesscass (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank's I agree and will try this although this may not always be possible because of later changes or relocation of diocesis Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


A 1870 German drawing shows Pius IX as Papst und König, Pope and King
Shea and other contemporaries refer to Pius as Pope and King

Is there a source that the Popes were ever called Kings of the Papal States? Gavin (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer is yes. I will add them as well as a 1870 drawing of Pius IX from a biography with the title Papst und König, Pope and King. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there an offical contemporary source were he is given that title? I.e. Diplomatic correspondence or a Vatican Publication? Gavin (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer is yes. John Gilmary Shea wrote in his 1877 biography of Pius IX, which has the Imprimatur of Cardinal John McCloskey and approbation of the archbishops and bishops of Cincinnati, Cleveland, Covington,Philadelphia, Fort Wayne,Richmond, Erie, Providence and Chicago, that

  • After the coronation mass, he received the insignia of Pontiff and King. [1]

To be sure the title Pope was superior to the title king and used predominantly. However, as King of the Papal States, Pius IX was secular head and involved in commerce, trade, military, education, arts, social affairs etc., which is part of the topic here --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ambrosius, John Gilmary Shea's biography was not a diplomatic correspondence nor a Vatican publication (imprimatur is an episcopal act, not a papal one, and one bishop's imprimatur can never be considered Vatican approval). The source may still be correct; however, what would strengthen your claim is if you had something showing that the Pope claimed this title to himself in diplomatic correspondence or that a sovereign state referred to him as "King" in their correspondence. (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I see no evidence that that title was ever used for a Pope, perhaps it a colloquial term but it does not seem to be used officially. Gavin (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously the title "pope" had priority over the temporal title king. After Pius IX no pope was crowned as king. The verification of the coronation of Pius IX as "king" is included in the above mentioned Shea book, which has the official imprimatur of the Catholic Church at the time, meaning that its contents were verified by a third source. I never claimed it was the Vatican, which would be highly unusual, given that Catholic books were approved by the local bishops. I did say, that this biography of John Gilmary Shea has the Imprimatur of Cardinal John McCloskey and approbation of the archbishops and bishops of Cincinnati, Cleveland, Covington, Philadelphia, Fort Wayne, Richmond, Erie, Providence and Chicago. If THAT is not official, I do not know, what is! --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Does imprimatur cover the issue of his title as king though? I thought it was only given to certify the accuracy of theological points. For example if Shea said Pius was infallible in his book, it would covered by the imprimatur as it is theological. However if Shea said the Pius was born in 1792 this would not be covered by imprimatur, even though it is historically accurate it is not a theological matter- the bishop does not have the authority to deem things historically accurate on behalf of the Church. Therefore then, a bishops imprimatur would not be evidence that a claim about a historical secular title is officially endorsement by the Church. To answer your question of what would be official- any document made by or on behalf of with the endorsement of the Holy See, Holy Office, Vatican State, Papal State Government. Gavin (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Pius IX and the Eastern Catholic Churches[edit]

I'm a bit surprised that the article doesn't mention Pius IX's relationship with, and attitudes toward, the Eastern Catholic Churches. We should try to add material on the topic. Majoreditor (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is an important point which you are welcome to improve upon. If you don't, I might do it later, once I find time. You find important traces of the topic in the part on Russia and the main article on the relation between the Vatican and Russia (1846-1958)--Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pius IX and Italian Reunification[edit]

It's surprising for me to see that almost nothing on this article relates to Italian Reunification, and the end of the Papal States. I also do not find information concerning the non expedit question. Summarizing, this article is long and contains a lot of details about this pope, but it falls short of describing the historical importance (at least for Italy) of his figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Angels and Demons Reference[edit]

I've just started reading "Angels and Demons", and I seem to remember a reference of Pius IX chiseling off the genitals of nude statues? Is this true? There seems to be a lot of people who've followed him very closely, and they should know. If it is true, why isn't it in this entry? Or if it is, I apologize in advance for overlooking it. Asc85 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I've heard and read about it too, if someone can come up with good sources this would certainly be a nice addition to the article Doriphor (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a very long time since I read Angels and Demons but I believe this may be a mistake on Dan Brown's part - Innocent X is the pope usually associated with putting fig leaves on all the nude statues. (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Insulting or persecution?[edit]

Expulsion of the Russian envoy to the Holy See Felix von Meyendorff by Pope Pius IX for insulting catholic faith

On this picture is written insulting of faith, but there was persecution of Catholics. I will give citates. --Stebunik (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


Nikolas persecuted Catholics in his empery. Watch a book of Franz Spirago, Példatár, Budapest 1927; page 279 (example nr. 609: Russian tsar Nikolas I by Pope Gregorius XVI; pope showed him tortured priests, believers and nuns); on page 263: (example nr. 578: Daily halb salted haring, about torture of 245 Greek-Catholic nuns). This picture showes not insutlting, but persecution of Catholics. Reason for expulsion was however cruel persecution of Catholics. --Stebunik (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It was not vandalism[edit]

Pius IX was truly popular. This my citation proves, that Pius IX was indeed popular in Italy (Half-Island Apennini) too. In original is that text:

In the next twenty months was Pius IX the most popular man on half-island; the exclamations: „Long life to Pius IX! were not ever ended. In den nächsten zwanzig Monaten war Pius IX. der poupulärste Mann der Halbinsel; des Rufes „Evviva Pio nono!” war kein Ende mehr. Seppelt –Löffle: Papstgeschichte, München 1933, 408.

I ask: Where is here vandalismus? I do not understand it.--Stebunik (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is my notice canceled? --Stebunik (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

With his advices helped to saint John Bosco to found Salesian Society; so call him „don Bosco's Pope” too.[edit]

This isn't English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Pij-IX brown.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Pij-IX brown.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No Mention of Pius IX escape to Gaeta?[edit]

This article appears to have no mention of the fact that Pope Pius XI fled to Gaeta when the Roman Republic was declared. Could someone with more time than myself please rectify this? Anjwalker Talk 09:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


On 26 July 1862, before Garibaldi and his volunteers were stopped at Aspromonte:

This reads as a non-sentence as what follows does not format as a block quote due to the image to its left.

It is easily remedied while retaining the block quote as

On 26 July 1862, before Garibaldi and his volunteers were stopped at Aspromonte, he confided to Odo Russell [...] that

or some such more readily readable format as what follows appears to be an indent given the image.

A quote to the right of an image surely requires some thought as to format for readability.

G. Robert Shiplett 13:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added {{clear}} under the image so that the text does not flow around it. Another alternative would be to use {{cquote}} instead. Elizium23 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate, undesirable images?[edit]

It has been suggested that the following images are undesirable: File:Pionono11.jpg, because it is not a photograph, and File:Pionono1.jpg, because it is a duplicate of the first. Now I can agree with the latter, but the first image is a good one, and just because something is not a photo is not a good reason to exclude it. I have reverted the changes and invite discussion and consensus on this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Problems in the lede[edit]

The opening sentence currently includes this ". . born Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti O.F.S.". OFS means a secular Franciscan. My unexceptionable edit removing the clearly impossible asseveration that anyone can be born a secular Franciscan (or a Christian, even) was summarily reverted by Elizium23 even though I had explained the grounds of my edit (the riposte "why not?" is irrational). I therefore bring the issue here, not least because I have identified further aspects of para. 2 of the lede which require attention.

  • The first sentence of para. 2 currently reads :- "Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, meaning that Mary was conceived without original sin."

The gloss starting with the word "meaning" is gauche to say the least. Since (a) the relationship between the dogma and its content and (b) the sense of the dogma are adequately addressed both in the section Overview and in the section Legacy, I see no call to amend the gloss which, rather, I propose deleting.

  • The second sentence of para. 2 of the lede is more problematic. Currently it reads:- "Pius IX also conferred the Marian title of Our Mother of Perpetual Help, a famous Byzantine icon from Crete entrusted to the Redemptorist priests." For a start, this is ungrammatical (see 5º below).

1º None of the matter in this sentence recurs anywhere in the article, so the facts it asserts are in need of confirmation, failing which it is liable to be deleted.

2º For the same reason two small amplifications are called for – the icon (which was documented in Rome from 1499 at the latest) was entrusted by Pius IX to the Redemptorists in 1866 according to the article "Redemptorists" in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911). A Redemptorist history, (Mother of Millions, 1995) states 1886, but since it also states that it was entrusted by Pius IX (who died in 1878), the date 1886 must be an error.

3º "Mother of Perpetual Help" redirects to "Our Lady of Perpetual Help" anyway, so it is more convenient to have a link which directs straight to that article.

4º The Redemptorists are not priests only, there are lay brothers too. Whether this was the case in 1866 I cannot say, but it seems safer to write "Redemptorists" rather than "Redemptorist priests".

5º If it is the case that Pius IX actually named the icon (which "Mother of Millions" contradicts), surely the sentence should read "Pius IX also conferred the Marian title of Our Lady of Perpetual Help on a famous icon which he entrusted to the Redemptorists"? Ridiculus mus (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Consider the absurdity of the parallel statement: "Pope Francis was born Giorgio Mario Bergoglio SJ" Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sorry I did not read completely and your edit was correct. We clearly need a better way to introduce his Secular Franciscan membership rather than in the lede sentence. My apologies. Elizium23 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is Franciscan only mentioned near the end of the article?--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
On my reading, it only appears in the source ref given at footnote [9]. The link is broken and should read I tried correcting it, but fell foul of the source definition template. Thanks Elizium23 - maybe you might fix the broken link. Ridiculus mus (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

which "Trient"[edit]

The article quotes Otto von Bismarck about the Pope leaving Rome for possible Malta or "Trient". Was this the town in Switzerland or Triento, Italy? Does anybody know for sure? Pete unseth (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Shea 66