Talk:Superior General of the Society of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

The Conspiracy Theory Section is Biased[edit]

Who is whoever is maintaining this article to be saying that Black Pope conspiracy theories are "not taken seriously by credible scholars?" That is biased and when someone tried to fix it they just added it again and deleted a credible source that was added as well. Stop messing around with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfive11 (talkcontribs) 12:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Jesuits are well known to have a left leaning political attitude. They have participated heavily in peoples movement in Latin America and in Asia. I dont want to censor anybody but I editing the content and trying to put in a balanced viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Engti (talkcontribs) 09:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what got entirely edited out of this article? Based on this discussion I'm seeing, there is more information available about this particular character that is available. I would think it beneficial if all viewpoints were laid down. That includes any extreme perspective, if it has sources. Of course, extremism would have to be cited, and fair treatment to the argument be executed... i.e. no belittling the perspective, as it affects the neutrality of the article. --OneRyt (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The "Conspiracy Theory" section has been deleted without explanation?  Mr JM  15:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Superior General or Father General?[edit]

I've been examining the text of the bulls incorporating the society and confirming its institute as well as the Constitutions, and I don't see any official usage of "Father General." Instead, I see Praepositus Generalis in Regimini militantis Ecclesiae of Pope Paul III and the same in Exposcit debitum of Pope Julius III, both in the Formula of the Institute. This translates to "Superior General" in English. I also see Praepositus Generalis in part IX chapter 1 of the constitutions and anywhere the Superior General is referred to in the Constitutions.

"Father General" would be renedered in Latin Pater Generalis. I don't see this. In fact, I would relegate this title to the status of a style or form of address but not the formal name of the office as this article claims it to be. It would be equivalent to having "Your Holiness" as the article title for Pope or Bishop of Rome.

For these reasons, I propose moving this article to Superior General of the Society of Jesus. Pmadrid 01:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further evidence of the office being "Superior General" and the address being "Father General" are two letters from the Holy See's Secretariat of State, dated 8 Apr and 10 June 1995, and a personal letter from the Pope dated 27 Sep 1995. All three are addressed to "Very Reverend Father Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, S.J., Superior General of the Society of Jesus". The letters from the Secretariat then greeted him as "Very Reverend Father General". All three letters are in Appendix Five of Documents of the Thirty-Fourth General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, ISBN 880810-19-0. Pmadrid 01:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Black Pope[edit]

I have created a separate entry for the term Black Pope. For the reasons on the talk page (including partial non-overlap) it should be kept separate. Jackiespeel 22:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just a nickname that will never grow beyond three sentences unless it starts repeating the content of this article. I see no need for a merge. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Savidan, did you mean to actually write "see no need for a separate article", as implied by your first sentence? That would be suggested by the fact that you argue for a merge on Talk:Black Pope. —Lowellian (reply) 14:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The article says the term "Black Pope" is derogatory. I've never noticed this. In the Catholic press it's used often and always in a neutral fashion. In fact, it's somewhat complimentary, because it reflects the degree of power this person has within the Church.24.44.252.192 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)captcrisis

In white[edit]

The article says the term black pope is used because the Father General wears black as opposed to the Popes white, then there is a picture of the Father Genreal in completely white vestmants. Could a short explenation be given beneath the picture if it is holliday garb or something so as to allay the confussion. Thanks. Basejumper2 08:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

His church (if he has one)[edit]

In Church of the Gesù it says, "...the Gesù was also the home of the Superior General of the Society of Jesus until the suppression of the order in 1773." Yet neither that article nor this one say where the Superior General is currently based out of. Does he have a church, is he at large, or something else? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)