Jump to content

Talk:Pope Pius V

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Order

[edit]

In your article on Pius V it is stated that he belonged to the Benedictine Order. He did not. He was a Dominican.

He also was NOT the first Dominican elected pope. Innocent V was a Dominican and elected in 1276 LONG before Pius V.

Machim?

[edit]

Does this place exist? The only references I can find to it occur in the numerous copies of this article which are on-line. If it doesn't, perhaps we should delete the reference. Tevildo 11:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Elizabeth I

[edit]

Shouldn't his excommunication of Elizabeth I and consequent final break of the Communion between Rome and Canterbury get mentioned? --BozMo talk 11:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pius V origin of papal white myth

[edit]

As a lay Dominican, I love this story. Unfortunately, it's likely apocryphal. Please see:

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=80414

Regarding the origin of the custom of the white papal cassock, a priest from Indianapolis writes:

"You state that the use of the papal white cassock originated with Pius V's use of his Dominican habit. I have heard this story repeated many times, and I suspect it is repeated so often because it's kind of a cute story. I suspect the story is apocryphal.

"Raphael's painting The Mass at Bolsena (1512) portrays Julius II in what appears to be pretty much the same white cassock and red mozzetta worn by popes today, as does his seated portrait of Julius II, and his Portrait of Leo X with Cardinals Luigi de' Rosso and Giulio de' Medici (1518-19). Piombo's 1526 portrait of Clement VII, and Titian's 1546 portrait of Paul III also portray these popes in white cassock and red mozzetta."

According to the news show Rome Reports, which airs on EWTN, popes have worn white since Sixtus IV (1471-1484). This is borne out in the contemporary portrait of Sixtus IV by Melozzo da Forlì (c. 1477-80).

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/vaticano/P-Platina.jpg

So, as wonderful as the story of St. Pius V, OP, refusing to give up his wonderful habit, it just doesn't jibe with the facts. --75.60.198.11 03:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. It was the actual first Dominican friar elected pope, Innocent V, who began the custom of wearing white. He was elected some 290 years before Pius V. Perhaps since they both had the same posnominal number they have been easily confused.

The article is sourced using a blog showing pics, saying earlier popes wore "the same cassock" as Pius V. I've never seen a painting of Pius V in a cassock. He is wearing white with a red mozzetta, but not a cassock. These are hardly cassocks [1] File:Pope_Pius_V_16th_century.jpg It's a very wide garment made of thin cloth. The oldest pic I've found of a pope possibly wearing a cassock is Benedict XIV, 18th century. File:Benoit_XIV.jpg. Maybe Pius wore his dominican habit - but if so, he was never depicted in it, but always in the papal "gala". Blogs aren't good sources, unless they are written by experts. In this case the blogger is obviously mistaken. --90.236.31.76 (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. For those who would like to check the blogger's pics and reasoning, here's the link [2]. --90.236.31.76 (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

[edit]

Because he is a Saint, his name is written as Pope Saint Pius V 203.196.50.58 (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is because the person, not the position, is the saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.79.8.16 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]
Pope Pius V.

Here's another painting of Pope Pius V. Feel free to use it in the article. Cheers PHG (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Character and Policy

"Miraculous Conception"? Is this supposed to mean "Immaculate Conception"? This dogma was not proclaimed until 1874 by Pope Pius IX.

~~ Daniel Baedeker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.128.148 (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but it was believed for a long time before, and Pius V added a feast of the IC to the Roman calendar. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, this dogma about "Immaculate Conception" was not proclaimed in 1874 but in 1854 (8th December). I read, that Pius V forbid to dispute about this question to theologians, because it was very warm and vehement this dispute.--Stebunik (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear statement under Election

[edit]

In the Election section, there is a statement tagged with "clarification needed:"

The prudence of Giovanni Francesco Commendone saved him at the commencement of his pontificate from trouble with Germany, as in the general diet of the empire at Augsburg, 26 March 1566.

Can anyone add details about this note? Otherwise let's delete it. AlbertusmagnusOP (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and delete. If anyone has more info, feel free to add it back in. AlbertusmagnusOP (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"quaestuary"?

[edit]

This word is linked to the article Profit economics [[3]] but the word does not appear in that article, so I still don't know what it means! --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Image Question

[edit]

I have seen many images of the Saint. This one, however, I have difficulty with this image. In the background is an image of torture. What is it's significance? I do know the Saint suffered and his work has immense importance. --MacOfJesus (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I have tried to bring up the image but it did not work.. will try later...MacOfJesus (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pope St. Pius V

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are: This image comes after the death of the Saint and is a reflection of his life in hind-sight. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little amazed that no one has come up with reflections on this image and its significance. Perhaps, there are no historians here??? If so perhaps I, too, should leave.... MacOfJesus (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's a fake, produced to defame Pius V. I've seen a variant of this image with a completely different background. However, I'm currently unable to decide which one is true/original. --Túrelio (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Turelio, I think it is not a fake but a re-cycling of two images to reflect an opinion on the life of the Saint, that is very unfair.... MacOfJesus (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the original image the Fore-image is in Black-&-White and shows the Saint with the Crucifix.
The figure seems to rise from the cross.
This image here, however, is in elaborate colour.
Now look at the background. At this time printing was in its infancy..... MacOfJesus (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am now surprised that someone has used the image I posted here because of the notes above, on the Article page. For, it does come from a source that is Anti-Pope Pius V, so in a sense it is "fake". I ask for a consensus that it be removed. I will provide an image that goes right back to him.. .... MacOfJesus (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete image from article, because it fails WP:NPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per being a sort of fake and thereby unencyclopedic. --Túrelio (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Let me get the correct one first and get the image up... then I will delete and get the correct one up. MacOfJesus (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now have the correct image from the earliest Missals.... will scan... and hopefully be able to get it up.... MacOfJesus (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add caption here

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put here the correct image from the earliest Missals [Latin]....... May the image above be deleted and this image placed there instead..... I am not able/allowed to edit it....MacOfJesus (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the image~~ I do hope it is ok... MacOfJesus (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Papacy vs. Pontificate

[edit]

In most of the other articles, the section detailing a Pope's activities during office are under the heading "Papacy," not "Pontificate." Should that be changed for consistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.207.7 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Memorial

[edit]

The reference to St. Pius V's feastday as a memorial is changed to optional memorial, which term is used in the site referred to in the statement. It is also the designation used in the Roman Missal. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuked his predecessor to his face? How?

[edit]

"He also stood firm against nepotism, rebuking his predecessor Pope Pius IV to his face when he wanted to make a 13-year-old member of his family a cardinal and subsidize a nephew from the papal treasury.[5]"

How is that possible, when Pius IV died prior to V's papacy? The linked reference does not explain it and the years noted on each end make it impossible to refer to an event prior to IV's papacy. Is this not logically impossible?

One would assume, though not stated in the source, that Antonio Ghislieri rebuked his predecessor as a cardinal, not as pope. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pope Pius V. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

At the end of the article, I noticed two categories: Category: Counter-Reformation - Category: Anti-Protestantism ("Counter-Reformation" and "Anti-Protestantism").

I think that is one too many and one too few. Two categories: anti-Reformation and (the same): anti-Protestantism – are too much. There is not really to say, that Tridentimum fought only against Protestantism, but rather to say, that it restored Catholicism too. Or: were not before the Reformation all these European countries - including England - Catholic? Who was before? Also: it is not the most felicitous expression »anti-Reformation«, much less »anti-Protestantism«. This last term is a bit offensive to Catholics. The term Counter-Reformation introduced protestant historian Von Ranke, which was otherwise a good historian, but he had looking at the history of the protestant angle; he very very loved Lutheranism. Wikipedia is neither Protestant nor Catholic, but objective and impartial. Therefore, if one category of anti- must be in this article, let it be one category of for- too (Counter-Reformation, Catholic-Restoration). Only then will be the categories fair and balanced according to the historical truth. We can omit a category of anti-Protestantism, because it is more eligible category Counter-Reformation. There should be written a category of Catholic restoration, because Tridentinum was it. I hope that now we are no longer one against the other, but the one for the other: but all for the unity in Christ.--Stebunik (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pius V and Immaculate conception

[edit]

Pope Pius V published 30 November, 1570 a papal bull Super speculam Domini; with this bull prohibits public discussion in their native language about this religious doctrine to appease the troubles and scandals about the teaching of Immaculate Conception, neither for nor against. [1] [2]--Stebunik (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 30 novembre 1570, bulle Super speculam Domini : pour apaiser les troubles et les scandales au sujet de la croyance en l’Immaculée conception, Pie V défend de traiter de cette controverse, ni pour ni contre, dans les assemblées publiques d’hommes et de femmes, et d’en disputer dans des écrits en langue vulgaire.
  2. ^ "Pie V". Compilhistoire. Retrieved 13 December 2016.

should I delete this

[edit]

He forbade horse racing in St. Peter's Square. Severe sanctions were imposed against blasphemy and adultery. The penalty for sodomy was to be burned at the stake. Doctors were forbidden to treat patients who had not recently confessed or received the sacraments. Blasphemers were allegedly treated according to their pocketbooks. The rich were heavily fined, the poor were flogged. These draconian laws quickly made Pius V the subject of Roman hatred[citation needed]; he was accused[citation needed] of trying to turn the city into a vast monastery. It should be noted, however, that he was not a hypocrite: in day-to-day life Pius V was highly ascetic. He wore a hair shirt beneath the simple habit of a Dominican friar and was often seen in bare feet.[17] most of this seems unsourcedIlikerabbits! (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_V&oldid=1209772522"