Talk:Pope/Archive 1

message: The leading sentence appears rather unambiguously to refer to the Roman Pontiff as the head of the Orthodox church.  This appears inconsistent with the Wikipedia entry on that church, and with the history of those two branches of Christianity.  Would someone care to explain why this phraseology was chosen?  It appears to assert a POV that is at minimum greatly in dispute.
:I think the sentence says that the Pope is the leader of the Eastern Catholic church, which is different from the Eastern Orthodox church, if I'm reading that correctly. EvilPhoenix 19:00, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
::It should read "Roman Catholic Church" not "Catholic Church" because of the differences between those two distinctions.  The Catholic Church referrs theologically to the whole spectrum of churches which agree to a series of beliefs (which curiously, the Roman Catholic Chruch denies).  The term "Roman Catholic Church", however, refers to the church headed by the papacy in Rome.
:::Um, what?  "Catholic Church" does not "referr" to what you say it refers.  Got a credible source? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about the leading sentence:

message: I added a couple sentences about the pejorative term Papist to the Pope article in the Objections to the Papacy section.
JesseG 18:46, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
:So I see.  However, lots of people, perhaps even most people, who use the word know very well that Roman Catholics don't worship the Pope. Csernica 23:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Papist

message: The article currently reads:
:After his death it was revealed in his last will and testament that he considered abdicating in 2000 as he neared his 80th birthday.
Yet it seems that the whole media bruhaha derives from an incorrect translation; the text of the testament cites in Latin the verse of Luke 2:29 "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace", where the Latin for "depart" may be also translated as "resign".
Furthermore, if one reads the verse in the Gospel of Luke, one can see that the word "depart" refers to the end of eathly life, not to resignation of an office. Also, it is a verse of thanksgiving. 
According to the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia - Article on Simeon the Just: The "just and devout" man of Jerusalem who according to the narrative of St. Luke, greeted the infant Saviour on the occasion of His presentation in the Temple (Luke ii, 25-35). He was one of the pious Jews who were waiting for the "consolation of Israel" and, though advanced in years, he had received a premonition from the Holy Ghost, Who was in him, that he would not die before he had seen the expected Messias. This promise was fulfilled when through guidance of the Spirit he came to the Temple on the day of the Presentation, and taking the Child Jesus in his arms, he uttered the Canticle Nunc dimittis (Luke, ii, 29-32)...
Thus, the Nunc Dimittis (Now let depart) verse "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace", is an act of thanksgiving uttered by Simeon when he saw the Child Jesus in the Temple. The promise had been fulfilled, and he was now ready to die.
Pope John Paul used the same verse in a section of his testament were he expressed thanks for being allowed to preside over the celebrations of Great Jubilee, marking the beginning of the Third Christian Millenium. 
Thus, the use of this verse is nothing but an act of thanksgiving and, perhaps, an indication that John Paul II percieved his mission as having been fulfilled, and that, like Simeon, he was ready to meet the end of his earthly life.
This has nothing to do with an indication of willingness to resign.
Malachi Martin seriously considered this option to be realistic in his novel Windswept House. Stijn Calle 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Pope John Paul II consider abdication ?

message: Wasn't it John XXIII and not Paul VI (as stated) who declared that he would never speak ex cathedra? Someone else 22:17 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)
Yup. It was John XXIII. I've changed it. Also removed the following sentence:
The Camerlengo officially pronounces the pope dead by tapping his head three times with a special hammer and calling his name; if there is no response the death is announced. 
Though always quoted, it never happens, or hasn't anyway for decades and decades. It is one of these ancient ceremonies long abolished which every journalist, when it comes to the time of the death of a pope, always quotes as fact except . . . its fiction. It may have happened sometime in the past, but no-one in the Vatican has any memory of it, any record of it, or any idea when it died out. They don't even know where the little 'silver hammer' is. The other part of this ceremony involved the relevant cardinal, as he tapped His Holiness on the forehead, saying, {name of pope} 'Art thou dead'? Apparently, every camerlingo (is that the correct spelling, BTW?) on appointment asks for this mythical silver hammer, and is disappointed to be told, 'Sorry, Cam. No such ceremony'. JTD 05:35 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)
:I just returned an hour or so ago from the "St. Peter and the Vatican: The Legacy of the Popes" exhibit at the Cincinnati Museum Center, and one of the items on display was a small golden hammer, labeled as the Cardinal Chamberlain's hammer; the description specifically described the hammer's use to determine the Pope's death and to smash the Fisherman's Ring. As this exhibit is put together by the Vatican, I have therefore restored reference to the hammer ceremony to the text, with the caveat that it does not appear to have been practised any time recently (I believe the exhibit dates its last use to 1903 or so). Publius 22:03, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That surprises me. Could you give me a source? Gugganij 14:44, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ex cathedra & Camerlengo

message: The election process is described in this article and in the conclave article, should one be folded into the other? ²¹²
Does anybody know if there was a pope who was not a cardinal when he was elected
does the pope have to be a cardinal when he is elected?
----
Why does the See Also link to Papacy wrap back to this article? Actually I was hoping for an article titled Papacy for the amusing reason that I'm trying to find a page of slurs, that I know I've seen once on wikipedia and can't find, and thought that Papacy might reference it. Ha, I can just look up some other, more obvious slur word (that has just occurred to me). Tried "Racism", tried "wop", gave up. Either I was drunk or imagining it, or I'm just not clever enough to find it.
----
I removed His Holiness the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in the section describing who is the current pope, since  afaics is not usual for an encylopedia to refer to the holder of an office with its style. Gugganij 08:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous

message: I rewrote the article to provide a bit more logical structure and consistency of style; I also added a few details about ceremonial insignia and such associated with the Papacy, incorporated the information from Myths and legends surrounding the Papacy (which I intend to change to a redirect) and a brief summary of other Christian denominations' objections to the Pontificate. A History of the Papacy article would be an excellent addition to Wikipedia, and I plan to revise the Holy See and Roman Curia articles shortly, as well.
Incidentally, if anyone has any information about the mobile chair that the Popes used to use (I cannot for the life of me remember what it was called) and the Popemobile which has replaced it, it would be appropriate to include that information in the insignia section, as that is something popularly associated with the Popes, like the umbracullum. Publius 18:13, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the sedia gestatoria and mentioned that it has been replaced by the Popemobile, but I do not know enough about the Popemobile to give any details about it. Publius 22:03, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ceremonial insignia

message: I strongly disagree with any idea of including information from Myths and legends surrounding the Papacy in this article and making the page a redirect. Many of the myths are cloud cuckooland garbage. They are justified for inclusion in an article explaining them in the context of conspiracy theories but they no more belong in the main article than allegations of jews drinking christian babies' blood deserve serious detailed inclusion in articles on Judiasm, or Lyndon Johnson's supposed role in having JFK killed deserves to feature in any detailed way in an article on LBJ. Wild ludicrous nonsense like these stories, if covered at all, should be put in the cultural context of the fact they are extremist opinions held by a small group, not made an important part of a credible main article. FearÉIREANN 22:38, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jtdirl. Green Mountain 23:05, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely! Sometimes Wikipedia's reach for NPOV embraces some preposterous fringe fancies. Wetman 00:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: I concede the point, gentlemen (or ladies, as appropriate). Aside from the matter already settled, have you any other suggestions on how to improve this article? Publius 00:05, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I can think of to expand the article would be something about the Pope's political role (especially in medieval times). Perhaps that only belongs in the article about the church, though. I was specifically thinking about things such as the crowning of monarchs (sometimes done by the Pope, I believe) and certain papal bulls (such as about the colonization of America, for example - see Treaty of Tordesillas). - Vardion 09:25, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: I think a new section would probably be the best way to incorporate it. Perhaps after the current Status and Authority section. But since I don't know that much about it, I'm not the best person to judge - whatever works best, I guess. Thanks. -- Vardion 00:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Extent of the article

message: Removed, from ==Objections to the Papacy==:
:Freethinkers can argue that the idea of an omnibenevolent God giving power to corrupt men like for example, Pope Alexander VI, Callixtus III ,  Judas Iscariot and some of the corrupt kings of Israel is illogical and contrary to the Scientific method.
:Liberal Christians often argue that a loving God would not allow anyone to go to Hell.  They would therefore reject concepts like, Anathema, excommunication and shunning.
The first argument -- that an omnibenevolent God would not give power to the corrupt -- had already been addressed, without this vague and irrelevant allusion to the scientific method. This is a question of theology (theodicy, to be precise), not of inquiry into concrete natural phenomena. 
The second argument is about anathematization, shunning, and excommunication, none of which are powers unique to the papacy. This argument, if it does represent the views of some liberal Christians (references are nice, of course), could be placed in excommunication; it might say something like "Liberal Christian group X does not believe in damnation, therefore it does not believe that excommunication and anathematization are necessary corrective measures; also [any other arguments]." 
There have been, and still are, valid reasons to criticize popes and the papacy, but these don't cut it. --67.69.188.80 15:10, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: . . .the First Vatican Council anathematised all who dispute the Pope's primacy of honour and of jurisdiction (it is lawful to discuss the precise nature of that primacy, provided that such discussion does not violate the terms of the Council's Dogmatic Constitution) or challenge the authority of those in charge.
. . . for obvious reasons: it's a vague, opinionated restatement of already-explained facts. --67.71.76.77 07:32, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text in <nowiki>==Objections to the Papacy==</nowiki>

message: "Quasi-absolute monarch" is a concept that escapes me, somehow... Wetman 05:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Quasi-absolute monarch

message: What are the rules if/when the Pope is incapacitated? Say, is in a health state that renders him incapable of attending to his duties? David.Monniaux 20:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume that you are asking this AFTER having read the section Pope#Death_or_Resignation.2C_and_election, as I wrote the Resignation section to answer just this question. User:Peter Ellis 12:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incapacitation 

message: This didn't seem to be covered anywhere else, so I included it in a parethetical comment where it seemed relevant.  Source: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=357949 - Bitt 23:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal naming 

message: "...a territory formally known as the "Patrimony of St Peter" under the terms of the Donation of Constantine". "Under the terms of the Donation of Constantine did we say? Good grief! There is some bad news about the Donation of Constantine, which apparently hasn't penetrated denser Catholic circles... --Wetman 20:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Donation of Constantine]]

message: To whomever took out the death message, thank you. Please do not modify this status until the Vatican has confirmed his death.--Txredcoat 19:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone took it out again.  I think it should be put back, not because of anything special about JP2 but because an article about the Pope should have a picture, just to show his costume and stuff like that.  If someone objects to a JP2 picture, then use some other historic Pope. 63.202.80.51 05:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From the history it looks like the picture was removed by accident.  I put it back.  63.202.80.51 05:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: JPII 

message: I put an image of John Paul II back in the article.  I think that the image should stay there until the next Pope is elected.  Then an image of the new Pope could replace John Paul's image, but I think there should still be an image of him somewhere in the Pope article just because of his major role in the Papacy.
JesseG 03:16, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
:Looks like someone took it out again.  I think it should be put back, not because of anything special about JP2 but because an article about the Pope should have a picture, just to show his costume and stuff like that.  If someone objects to a JP2 picture, then use some other historic Pope. 63.202.80.51 05:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From the history it looks like the picture was removed by accident.  I put it back.  63.202.80.51 05:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of John Paul

message: The article says that, upon a pope's death, his private apartment is sealed. Is this forever or does the new pope eventually move in? --Westendgirl 07:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The apartment is sealed until the election of a new pope. -- KTC 21:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sealing of Papal Apartment

message: Eastern Christian objections to the modern Papacy are seriously misstated.  It is not, as the article claims, that they recognize a "Petrine" primacy of honor for the bishop of Rome, it's that they recognize a canonical primacy based on the city's position as the old capital of the Empire.  They in fact deny that the bishop of Rome is the successor to St. Peter in any kind of unique sense not shared by any other bishop. (They usually go even further and insist that Peter was never even bishop of Rome and therefore cannot have been the first Pope in any event.)  As far as any kind of "Petrine primacy of jurisdiction" goes, they hold that it never existed in the first place.  This is based the universal Holy Tradition of the Christian East, and supported by Acts 15 where it is manifestly evident that at the Council of Jerusalem it was the local bishop, St. James the Brother of the Lord, who presided and pronounced the decision of the council and not St. Peter who was certainly present (v. 7).
It may be a side issue that, at least for Eastern Orthodoxy, the Apostolic Succession is an issue of faith at least as much as it is a physical succession of laying on of hands and that therefore, since in their view the Pope is an heresiarch, any Apostolic Succession he may claim is null and void as far as they're concerned.
The only reason I'm not updating this paragraph myself is because as written it lumps Anglicanism together with the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Churches and I know next to nothing about Anglican objections to the Papacy.  For all I know it's accurate as far as they're concerned. Csernica 03:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections to the Papacy 

message: Um, guys? When you revert some recent vandalism, could you please revert all of it?  This partal reversion is a real PIA, especially when subsequent contributors don't notice and add more edits on top of it, necessitating a merge that otherwise wouldn't need to happen. Csernica 06:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent vandalism 

message: Something needs to be written how there are other Popes living at the same time as the Catholic Pope, and how calling the Catholic Pope "THE POPE" holds with it tremendous POV. Furthermore, I am proposing that what is now written under Pope should be moved to Roman Catholic Pope, and what is now at Pope (disambiguation) should be moved to Pope. Kingturtle 08:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Popes 

message: I have heard that there has never been a black Pope, and I have heard that there was a black Pope. which is it? Kingturtle 08:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the old days, "Africa" denoted the Roman Province of Africa which was only the northwestern coast of the continent.  In that sense there have been Popes from Africa, three of them to be exact, but they were of a Mediterranean rather than a sub-Saharan African cast. That area had been heavily colonized first by Phoenicians and then by the Romans themselves. I know it's very tempting to equate "African" with "Black".  But consider that in the same period "Asia" meant strictly that peninsula between the Agaean and the Black Seas, where Turkey now is and which we now call "Asia Minor".  If we were to hear that someone back then was born in Asia, he wouldn't look Chinese, but Greek. This is the same kind of thing. Csernica 09:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  African Pope 

message: :Nevertheless, 332 §2 gave rise to speculation that either:
:* Pope John Paul II would have resigned as his health failed, or
:* a properly manifested legal instrument had already been drawn up that put into effect his resignation in the event of his incapacity to perform his duties.
The above, quoted from the article, does not make sense.  "Properly manifested" means made public, doesn't it? Michael Hardy 21:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, this is the specific terminology used in Catholic canon law when describing the how the wishes of the Pope to resign must be expressed in order for his resignation to be valid.  The problem, if such a document existed, is that someone would have to decide when the Pope was sufficiently incapacitated for it to take effect.  A document that "properly manifested" his desire to resign would therefore presumeably describe the conditions under which it should be used with some specificity, and would express his desire to resign under those conditions in unambiguous terms. This article is among those discussing the situation. Csernica 01:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: JPII's hypothetical abdication

message: Is this Bible passage a relevant objection to the papacy? Mat 23:9 - "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." This seems acutely relevant to at least the etymology of the term. -- FP 07:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
:That depends entirely on whether some group that objects to the Papacy actually uses it that way.  The point of the section isn't to actually argue against the Papacy but to present the reasons why set forth by those groups that reject it. Similarly, the Roman Catholic arguments in support of the Papacy are there to present the reasons they believe the institution is one required by their faith, not so as to convert anyone.
:I don't know of any such groups personally.  Generally that passage is used by certain Protestant groups to object to addressing priests as "Father".  If you can find the verse being used against the Papacy by some legitimate group, I invite you to go for it. Csernica 07:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections to the papacy

message: The new section on Rites of Osiris is unclearly written and lacks links.  Moreover, I rather wonder about it ..... Michael Hardy 04:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly suspect it's nonsense, and have removed it. Ah, the joys of a high-traffic article... Shimgray 08:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Osiris?

message: "...and Holland was not yet separated from Germany back then" - this is apropos Pope Adrian VI, born in Utrecht, pope 1522-23. Surely a better characterization of Adrian's "nationality" could be approximated than this. --Wetman 09:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adrian VI as a "German pope"

message: No, the statement is correct.  After Adrian VI, until John Paul II, all the popes were Italian.  And yes, popes have come from other areas previously and probably will again.Davescj 09:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say he was the second non-Italian pope ever, it says he was the second since 1523.  That's perfectly accurate. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only the second non-Italian pope? 

message: "In some quarters, it is felt that Benedict's election as pope is further evidence that the papacy is moving away from being an Italian-dominated institution." Some quarters indeed. Note the use of the passive of non-attribution. This non-statement is a ruse to draw attention from the undisputable fact that Ratzinger is a consummate insider, a politician whose previous career has been at the very heart of the Papal Curia. Any improvements to this would add welcome balance. --Wetman 23:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a complete ruse.  You will find the occasional article about the internationalization fo the papacy.  But, to be honest, I don't think we will know one way or the other for a few more reigns.DaveTroy 21:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A ruse

message: A stub has been created on ecclesiastical government which needs definition and structure.  A section on the Papacy would be very important.  Please see talk page if any editors here would like to contribute.  Comments welcome.  WBardwin 23:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ecclesiastical government]] 

message: I cut the reference to the Pope of Alexandria's full title.  It's really neither here nor there as far as the Pope of Rome goes, and in any event certainly doesn't merit such a prominent place in the present article, which is sufficiently lengthy without it.  I can't even tell what the point was in mentioning it.  Was it perhaps to show that the Pope of Rome is not the only ecclesiarch with a grandiose title? I don't think anyone doubted that anyway.
I gave priority to the "PP" of the Papal signature as standing for "Papa" since no official sources could confirm "Pastor Pastorum".  That is undoubtedly among his titles, but that doesn't automatically mean that's what the abbreviation stands for, and the Catholic Encyclopedia comes down for "Papa". I didn't cut "Pastor Pastorum" completely only because this appears to be a broadly made claim -- one made without any official support that I could discern, but broadly nontheless. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Office and Nature 

message: I removed a section at the end called "Objections", and I feel I should explain my actions here. It provided links to two Seventh Day Adventist websites (three different links, actually, but two of them were to different parts of the same website). On one website, there were some articles on Mary, some on Islam, some on the Bible and Alcohol, and some on the Pope. It was not a website that really dealt with the Pope in any special way, so I couldn't see that it was significant enough to warrant being linked to in the article. The other website (two links) was full of sensational stuff about the Harlot Church, and the Pope being the Beast and the Antichrist, etc. I will admit that I'm not exactly anxious to have the Pope criticized(!), but I assure everyone that I understand Wikipedia policy, and would not attempt to remove scholarly, relevant criticism. This was not scholarly or relevant. Ann Heneghan (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining my edit 

message: "Curiosities attached to the Pope" - eg the prophecies attached to Malachy, the list of items linking John Paul II and Leo XIII I had put on the coincidences page, other connections etc. 
Jackiespeel 22:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested sub-page

message: I have started History of the Papacy - please develop.
Parallel pages could be developed for other religious leaderships.
Jackiespeel 17:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Papal history

message: The pope is not the patriarch of the Catholic Church.  He is patriarch of the West.  There are other Patriarchs in the Latin Church, but they have no authority as they do in the Easter Catholic Church.Davescj 09:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Correction 

message: as the longest reigning modern pope, should there not be a picture of JP2 somewhere on this page? Pellaken 03:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Pius IX not modern enough? He's only been dead for 128 years. Gentgeen 05:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Paul II