Talk:Papal tiara/Archive 1

message: Do you think the very lengthy section on the Vicarius Filii Dei controversy might be moved elsewhere? It seems somewhat secondary to the main article, and partially reproduces material at Vicarius Filii Dei. - Montréalais
:To be honest no. The reason I put it here is because for millions of people, the moment they hear of a papal tiara they think of 666. It is one of the biggest myths about Roman Catholicism. It is one of the topics that if you don't go into detail about it here people who believe it is true will immediately assume you have censored out a key fact. I have been in enough edit wars to know that if some big belief (usually some urban myth or politically inspired analysis) is explicitly not dealt with in detail in the main article, it leads to people adding in the stuff they think you have censored. It is the soft of thing that if put in a daughter article will simply be put in here again anyway by someone, except what will be put in will be a grabled version of the myth as fact. This way, no-one can claim this mytical 'truth' has been censored out and the detail put in is such only the most fanatical believer of the nonsense would try to add in a justification for the looney myth in the page. Having it here is the best way to nail the myth and so avoid someone constantly trying to edit it in. FearÉIREANN 04:59, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Vicarius Filii Dei

message: Hi all, that section perplexed me a bit.  So many possible explanations for the three crowns' meaning were trotted forth without one which seems glaringly, screamingly obvious at least as a potential candidate to this ex-Catholic:  the Trinity!  Is it known for a fact that the three crowns definitely do *not* represent the Trinity, or is this a possibility that should be added to that section? -Kasreyn
:It certainly is an idea. But none of the sources I found actually raised it. I was surprised myself as it seemed a reasonable interpretation, but as wikiepedia is not based on independent research but interpreting existing research, I decided not to put it in. But by all means do if you think it worth mentioning. FearÉIREANN 23:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance of the three crowns

message: First, does any of the polemical matter on Pius VI belong here at all, rather than Pius VI?
The chief source for the following is Ludwig Pastor's History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages.
*Napoleon's troops is wrong. Pius was expelled on February 20, 1798. Napoleon had been recalled and reassigned; he was about to be sent to Egypt.  He was not First Consul until the coup of Brumaire: November 9, 1799 - almost two years later; three months after Pius's death - upon which he ordered that Pius be buried.
* Are Single Cassock and flung confusions with the expulsion of Pius VII in 1808? Pius VI was given three days to pack. See Christopher Hibbert, Rome, p.234.
*Pius was escorted out of Rome by the French, under Berthier's orders. He was settled in Siena and Florence, then under French control, in the the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Pastor, 40, p.354-5. For Berthier, see Lebbvre, French Revolution, II p.224 (tr. Hall, New York and London 1964)
*I find two possible threats to Pius's life. He could have been in danger from 
the Roman mob, or French plunderers; and the French might not have minded if he caught a fatal chill in the Tuscan winter. Both these are quite possible; neither of these is planned murder.
*The funeral of Pius belongs, not in this article, but in his own. 
*Several Cardinals remained in Rome, at Pius's orders. 
*Pius lay unburied because his entourage insisted he be buried in Rome; they then prefered that it be unsanctified rather than presided over by a Consitutional priest. "[Cardinal] Spina was able to prevent a Constitutional Biship from presiding at the funeral, but he had to refrain from taking a personal part in the ceremony so as not to give his silent consent to a deed that was directly contrary to his master's last wish." Pastor, 40 p.391 
*Pius VI was not unburied at his successor's coronation. He was buried at Valence on 30 January 1800; he was disenterred for reburial at Rome 24 December 1801; his second funeral was on 19 February 1802. Pastor 40, 392-3
Septentrionalis 17:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputable points

message: * Hugh Gough, The Terror in the French Revolution (Palgrave) () is a vividly titled pamphlet. But the only mention of the Papacy is "because the civil constitution [of the clergy] had not received Papal approval" (p.15 of 79). It ends, properly, in 1795; it discusses no point mentioned in this article - and is middle-of-the-road on the extent and intelligibility of the Terror 
Its inclusion is padding. Septentrionalis 17:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: and his second exile was largely at Fontainbleau palace. Septentrionalis 20:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The whole issue of why a special papal tiara was needed needed the context of the chaos that surrounded the papacy at that time. The farce surrounding the death and non-burial of the previous pope is useful to contextualise and symbolise that chaos. Context is important sometimes in history: even if the specific case in a literal sense isn't 100% relevant, what the case tells contextualises the directly relevant information. It is standard in historical research to provide that context by this means. Without the information, a reader may not fully understand the chaos of the time, of which the new tiara was one result. FearÉIREANN(talk) 18:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reasons Pius VII was being crowned on a small island off Venice will suffice, don't you? Septentrionalis 18:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: *Returned to Rome in triumph, July 18011800; his predecessor was disinterred for burial in Rome  December 1801. I would like to know what source is supplying Jtdrl with these gruesome tidbits. Septentrionalis 04:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: and his second exile was largely at Fontainbleau palace. Septentrionalis 20:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pius VII]]

message: Since the issue is apparently still live, I bring back the evidence:
The chief source for the following is Ludwig Pastor's History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages.
*Napoleon's troops is wrong. Pius was expelled on February 20, 1798. Napoleon had been recalled and reassigned; he was about to be sent to Egypt.  He was not First Consul until the coup of Brumaire: November 9, 1799 - almost two years later; three months after Pius's death - upon which he ordered that Pius be buried.
* Are Single Cassock and flung confusions with the expulsion of Pius VII in 1808? Pius VI was given three days to pack. See Christopher Hibbert, Rome, p.234.
*Pius was escorted out of Rome by the French, under Berthier's orders. He was settled in Siena and Florence, then under French control, in the the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Pastor, 40, p.354-5. For Berthier, see Lebbvre, French Revolution, II p.224 (tr. Hall, New York and London 1964)
*I find two possible threats to Pius's life. He could have been in danger from 
the Roman mob, or French plunderers; and the French might not have minded if he caught a fatal chill in the Tuscan winter. Both these are quite possible; neither of these is planned murder.
*The funeral of Pius belongs, not in this article, but in his own. 
*Several Cardinals remained in Rome, at Pius's orders. 
*Pius lay unburied because his entourage insisted he be buried in Rome; they then prefered that it be unsanctified rather than presided over by a Consitutional priest. "[Cardinal] Spina was able to prevent a Constitutional Biship from presiding at the funeral, but he had to refrain from taking a personal part in the ceremony so as not to give his silent consent to a deed that was directly contrary to his master's last wish." Pastor, 40 p.391 
*Pius VI was not unburied at his successor's coronation. He was buried at Valence on 30 January 1800; he was disinterred for reburial at Rome 24 December 1801; his second funeral was on 19 February 1802. Pastor 40, 392-3
*Duffy summarizes this all in the phrase Refused Christian burial (emphasis mine) which is a vast simplification, and defensible only on the assumption that schismatics cannot be Christians (and that  the Constitutionél clergy were schismatic). I follow Pastor's three page, detailed account. 
*If the marker was paid for the commune, as seems likely, its wording was required by law. (In fact, most of this pother is a claim that Pius VI should have been above the laws of France.)
Lastly, all this has nothing to do with the tiara. "If you want to send a message, use Western Union"   Septentrionalis 20:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole issue of why a special papal tiara was needed needed the context of the chaos that surrounded the papacy at that time. The farce surrounding the death and non-burial of the previous pope is useful to contextualise and symbolise that chaos. Context is important sometimes in history: even if the specific case in a literal sense isn't 100% relevant, what the case tells contextualises the directly relevant information. It is standard in historical research to provide that context by this means. Without the information, a reader may not fully understand the chaos of the time, of which the new tiara was one result. FearÉIREANN(talk) 18:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reasons Pius VII was being crowned on a small island off Venice will suffice, don't you? Septentrionalis 18:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pius VI]]

message: "Pope John XXIII (1958-1963) wearing his own Tiara given by the people of his home region in 1959. Because his election was so unexpected, they had not the time to have a tiara manufactured for his actual coronation. As shown above he used the 1877 tiara." can be read to mean that either he is wearing "his own Tiara" or that he is wearing "the 1877 tiara" or that somehow they are the same. Please could someone knowledgable clarify? --Theo  (Talk) 09:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I hadn't noticed the potential confusion until you pointed it out. I have reworded it slightly, and said 'below' with reference to his coronation picture. Hopefully that clears it all up. Well spotted. FearÉIREANN(talk) 20:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture caption 

message: The article states, "In a controversial break with tradition, Benedict's personal coat of arms does not show a tiara in the ornaments; it being replaced by with the papal mitre." However, the image and text accompanying Benedict's coat of arms (from Papal Coat of Arms) indicates that the tiara is now present. Should the paragraph in this article be amended to reflect this? HorsePunchKid→龜 05:18, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
It's not the tiara on Benedict coat of arms: it resembles the tiara, but is in fact the mitre.
I've temporarily blocked the article. It is today's featured article on the main page and has been bombarded by vandalism. (I've blocked two vandals already for repeat vandalism.) FearÉIREANN(talk) 19:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presence of tiara on Benedict XVI's coat of arms 

message: Someone with unlock capability needs to restore the material on part 3: weight of the tiara
--Fred 19:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. FearÉIREANN(talk) 19:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part 3 vandalism remains 

message: "The Triregnum should not be confused with the Triple Crown."  JHCC 14:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Silly joke which I will not add to the article

message: Since I've been rv'd on this twice maybe I need to explain myself more. The issue is this bit: "the tiara has not been abolished, merely laid aside in terms of usage. Thus a future pope could decide to be crowned and wear one of the Triple Tiaras: the recent increased usage of some traditional elements, most notably the Tridentine Mass, which in an about turn is now being approved for usage more widely,[18] might open up the prospect of a return of what was the papal symbol pre-Second Vatican Council." The footnote is a big long excursion into another topic, and a pretty eccentric excursion at that. 
Sure, the recent increased usage of traditional elements might open up said prospect...and maybe it will also open up the prospect of a return of the sedia gestatoria. Probably not though. This strikes me as highly speculative. The article right now reads just a bit too much  as though it were written to support a wishful-thinking, eccentric hypothesis that the tiara is on the way back. The purported context sounds more like argument to me, and as such doesn't belong in an encyclopedia artice. Isn't it enough just to note the possibility that a Pope could bring it back, and be done with it?
Moreover, the tone of this article is occasional inappropriately breezy and chatty (see especially that footnote 18 referred to above) and this needs to be minimized.--Transf1o 20:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin Mass & return of tiara 

message: I'm simply noting here an inconsistancy within wikipedia, as the article entitled "Pope" sub-title "History of Papal titles," indeed lists and describes "Vicarious Fili Dei" as a current Papal title.  However, from this article: "Contrary to what some believe or have believed in the past, "Vicarius Filii Dei" is not one of the pope's titles."
Neither have reference, and one or the other must be corrected.  A once over didn't reveal to me that this inconsistancy had ever been brought up in either article's talk page.
:Well spotted. A small minority POV pushers have been pushing the myth of Vicarius Filii Dei all over the net (some of them have specifically targeted Wikipedia). Obviously they've slipped it into the pope article again *sigh*. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicarius Filii Dei 

message: In any case, I want to draw attention to a statue of St. Peter in the collection of Metropolitan Museum.  Peter is shown fairly young, and is tricked out in, among other things, a fairly tall, conical cap with a bit of a tassel at the top.  I am pulling a blank on the date of the thing, but early Middle Ages sounds about right.
Isn't it interesting that some descriptions (not all) of the manadatory cap of the major flamens is of a conical item topped with a special item (a twig with a tuft of wool, as I recall, for the Flamen dialis and so on).  
One wonders — all that nice Christian lore aside — if the papal cap is just another survival of ancient religious symbols, appropriated by Christian priests to assert their status.  There is the curly-headed staff of bird-watching augurs (the lituus), now carried by Western-rite Christian bishops, and even employed by them in marking out the templum while consecrating a church, in just the same way as was done in pagan days.  No shepheard's staff there.  There is the herald's kerykion -- as it can be found in museum collections, with its two snakes facing each other, now carried by many Eastern-rite bishops, though some now "sanitize" the snakes by abstraction.
In short, Christian priests took over lots of things from those who came before.  Would it be surprising to find that a Roman bishop adopted as his official headgear something that linked him to the old priesthood he hoped to supplant -- or had supplanted? --djenner 22:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Quite a bit of chat here that seems irrelevant to the topic...''' 

message: Not quite, but close.  An edit on June 20 effectively doubled the text of this article.  The second version "seems" to be the original, the first version a copy-edit of it, so the first copy was retained.  Lima or someone else may want to check that.  Gimmetrow 21:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Tiara 

message: I've initiated a minor FAR for this article. I hope that someone can address the concerns I've raised there. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor review 

message: I am new to wikipedia. Just done some minor revisions in the "666" section. Some sentences and phrases with regards to the Seventh-dayh Adventist church were somewhat general and had an unbalanced feel to them. I tried to address that. Stefanbs 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor review 

message: Think you guys ought to see the picture of the Pope with Patriarch Bartholomew I (currently showing at http://www.ecupatriarchate.org/), where the Pope is using his personal coat of arms with the tiara above it...!
Nainfa 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the Papal Tiara  

message: Could someone take a look at the end of the article?  It seems to be a very long web address.  Missjessica254 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weirdness at the End

message: Should we put in there anywhere that it is sometimes in pop culture referred to as a "pope hat" Yes, it could be offensive to some people but.....I have heard it called that --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 21:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The papal tiara is made of three crowns attached to form a giant quasi-hat, and is no longer worn, while the modern pope hat is less of a crown is more of a hat (it's a type of mitre).  The term "pope hat" is in common informal usage, and currently redirects to Papal regalia and insignia, although that article doesn't mention the term. -Agyle 10:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope hat 

message: :Image:Tiara-1877.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 insure 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) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Tiara-1877.jpg

message: I would argue that the image :Image:BXVI_CoA_like_gfx_PioM.svg does indeed include a the papal tiara, or something designated to resemble it, but is simplified. The article, or the signature under the picture to be precise, states the opposite. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:BXVI_CoA_like_gfx_PioM.svg 

message: the search "pope hat" redirects to here instead of to the article on the mitre.  The tiara was never called the "pope hat" and I think the term may have even come into existence since the last time the tiara was used.
Anyways, the point is that "pope hat" should redirect to the mitre article.  I know little of wikipedia and thus do not know how to do it myself, so I brought it up here.  Thank you. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.188.113.180 (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope hat 

message: In the 1968 film The Shoes of the Fisherman, Pope Kiril silences the crowd during his coronation by removing the papal tiara as soon as it is placed on his head, saying, "Jesus Christ, whose vicar I am, was crowned with thorns. I stand before you bareheaded because I am your servant." In real life, every new Pope since then has eschewed the papal tiara. Coincidence? Jimpoz (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting Coincidence 

message: There's a reference to 1798 that doesn't make sense: "Over twenty silver tiaras exist, of which the earliest, the sole survivor of 1798, was made for Pope Gregory XIII in the 16th century." The previous sentences cover events which happened hundreds of years earlier, so the context switch is confusing. 192.91.173.36 (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of 1798