Talk:Pope Leo I

message: A latin Patriarch of Rome granted himself the title Pope, and made himself infallible.
The Patriarch (or Pope) of Rome was declared by Constantinople, and therefore several Patriarchs of Rome were Greek early on.  
Initially ( when Byzantium was fighting back and forth to protect Rome from the barbarians ) The Patriarch of Rome was with the other 4 Patriarchs of the empire. Patriarch of Constantinople, etc.
Pope_John_VII, John VII was the last Greek Patriarch (and I believe the final legitimate Christian reign in Rome) in 707.
Also see, Byzantine_captivity.
Pope_Leo_IX caused the gap between East and West by trying to make himself the head of all churches, when he was not.
By making the papacy into a virtual government, and not doing things the orthodox way the Papal States damned themselves. 
Bishops and Patriarchs are very similiar, Patriarchs are Autocephalous (Bishops that report to no higher Bishop or church position).
The title means nothing, it became a meaning later on to identify the broken Christian head of Rome.. The leader of which declared himself infallible. Divius (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First Pope

message: He was a Patriarch of the Roman church, that was allied to Constantinople.
There was no seperate "Roman" "Catholic" Church ( Western Christianity ) until much later. Divius (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pope??

message: First pope? This question needs clarification. While the official Roman Catholic position is that St. Peter was the first pope, I also thought that there were other bishops termed "popes" in the first few centuries before Leo I (I found at least 43 of them in a quick search). So clarification is needed on those who claim Leo as the "first Pope." Is he the "first pope" in the modern sense of the Papacy? Is he the first one who referred to himself with the title? Or some other bit of info? It would help explain the "first" distinction with some sources that make and support this claim.
--------
User:205.188.116.138 put in this unwikified version.
Good grief.  The article doesn't claim that he was the first pope; it says he was the first pope to be named "the great"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.32.129 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article also states that Leo was first pope buried in St. Peters.  Well, St. Peter is buried under St. Peters, and St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, which is the Pope.  So some rewording is probably in order.  Democrat moderators, neither edit my reply nor send me a message like you do to me on other posts, because it is obvious that the talk page is used as a discussion board, and quit being prejudiced. 98.181.50.194 (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: first pope?

message: Just want to add my 2 cents. The Atilla The Hun story is not historically proven. It's a story told by the church, but there are other theories why the huns pulled back. Some historians postulate that illness was the reason, for instance. I wouldn't change it myself  (right now) as I have more researching to do on it, but if anyone has good sources it would, I believe, be good for the article to present all views, or as many as are well backed up.
--jenlight 13:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I modified it to reflect the ambiguity, while also fleshing out some alternative reasons. Generally, most sources I've read view the traditional account of Leo morally convincing Attila to grant mercy as quaint and unrealistic. Looking at it in terms of Realpolitik, there are much more persuasive interpretations behind Attila's decision (especially considering Attila's previous behavior). The myth that pope Leo himself saved Rome is likely a bit naive, although it makes for a powerful story--which is why it still gets told like that. At most Leo negotiated a deal and bought Attila off via shrewd diplomacy, not via morality appeals. 69.169.130.131 23:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great addition. Do you have any recommended sources for someone who wants to follow up on some of these alternative theories? -- Stbalbach 14:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atilla the Hun

message: A neutrality warning should be placed on the article. It must have been taken from an early Catholic Encyclopedia. Johnor 11:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am tagging the section "Zeal for Orthodoxy", it seems to require the most attention. I find it to be the most biased perspective within the article and, thus, the one that requires a tag most of all. I'm also putting another tag for the whole article (one that is less demanding because the rest of it may not require as much work). Also, Pope (St.) Dioscorus is made to look like somebody under rule of the catholic Pope. ROME IS NOT THE CAPITAL OF THE WORLD IN THE EYES OF OTHERS. As a Copt, I'm shocked, because the other (Coptic/Non-Chalcedonian) point-of-view is completely ignored. And if anyone has any objections, then look at what others said about the tag being required. It looks like the majorty is good with a tag, but there can still be discussion on which tag is most appropriate. "Zeal for Orthodoxy" could be renamed "Controversy" or have sub-sections with possibly "Zeal for Latin Orthodoxy" (in order to reduce confusion with Oriental & Eastern Orthodoxy). Also, the Oriental Orthodox (I know this because I am one) insist that St. Dioscorus was Orthodox in teaching and that he did adopt Pope St. Cyril's teachings (1: St. Dioscorus was Cyril's disciple and personal secretary; 2: I put several sources on Talk:Dioscorus of Alexandria#Oriental Orthodox Are Not Heretics explaining the Oriental Orthodox point-of-view). We can incorporate these & other sources to combine with other POVs to make it proper encyclopedic content (as in "NPOV"). Feel free to give me any suggestions. ~ Troy 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I can see the reasons for the NPOV tags, and I can understand different sections being tagged as NPOV, but is it REALLY NECCESSARY to stick "Neutrality Disputed" after every single sentence? It seems both slighly overzealous and not a little bit childish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.44.11 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding, there's what, twenty of them? I'll just add a neutrality disputed tag at the top.--The Dominator (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless an article on popes confines itself to recording the different POV's, I don't see how any article on an alleged pope can be NPOV.  Secularists, Protestants, Romanists, Eastern Orthodox, and nondenominational Christians are not going to agree on the subject of popes.  (EnochBethany (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going overboard with the NPOV tags, perhaps? 

message: There should maybe be a separate entry on Leo's Tome to Flavian, which discusses complex christological issues that are still relevant today in the context of the modern ecumenical movement. ADM (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I came here hoping for a quick résumé of the contents of the Tome, but the article says nothing beyond the fact that the Tome follows Augustine (in what specifics?). It would be great if someone could flesh this out, or indeed make a separate article of it. Vilĉjo (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tome to Flavian

message: The Annales Cambriae record Leo changing the dating for Easter. If true, should be a mention somewhere. — LlywelynII 22:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Easter reform

message: Discussion was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2013#Papal article consistency Elizium23 (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not say there that the lead sentence must be formulated as "Pope Peter was Pope". Quite the opposite, in fact – point 2 addresses the issue of redundancy. Surtsicna (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal article consistency 

message: I'm bringing this up because when I'd edit the title Saint before a name, to St. I get reverted.  Why spell out Saint rather than put St.?
It seems like it should say St. Leo the Great, rather than Saint Leo the Great.  When there's a doctor, you don't write Doctor Frasier Crane.  
You write the short form, such as Dr. Sigmund Freud. NapoleonX (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Saint vs. St.

message: Was looking through view history, saw that someone (Pipsally) had removed the image of Pope Leo twice, looked through the profile a sec. Seems that they deleted several images from several articles regarding Popes on March 29-30, disregarding them as "fanciful images". I think that the depictions of the Popes are quite important in a historical sense. It allows readers to get an image of the specific Pope in their head, rather than having a disembodied entity in their place. By having an artistic depiction, it can speed up the learning process to a degree. But, overall, I think that the most important reason for the image is that it makes the page look better, I mean, look at that beard! 119.18.3.165 (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. It puts an image in people's minds. The problem is that these images are completely made up. The deletions aren't contemporary but were centuries, indeed millennia after the lives of those they purport to show.Pipsally (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is usually a good reason for most things. What if it's made up? What does that matter to you? I understand that they aren't contemporary, and that can have an effect on accuracy, but who really cares? I reckon that the person who originally added this image years ago wanted for people to appreciate what an artist thought a great man from a bygone era looked like. Regardless of the artwork being conceived 1200 years after the life of Pope Leo, it attempts to show the view of so many people at that specific time. So, it is important in its own special way. It shows how, even then, a full millennium later, people had enough respect to depict him in an artwork. It doesn't matter if it is made up, regardless of time difference, it shows the feelings of those who read and learnt about Leo. I think that showing this image is a perfectly good idea, as it encourages the people of today to learn and read about Pope Leo in the same way that those in the past did. It gives them solace in knowing that they aren't alone in adoration for such a figure. TL:DR I think that displaying this image is perfectly fine, as it encourages people to be passionate in learning history, perhaps passionate enough to produce artworks of a similar calibre, be it in text or image form.119.18.0.92 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I've heard of symbolism. Wikipedia isn't the place for it. We could fill Wikipedia with all sorts of inspirational images, but if they're not accurately depicting the subject of the article then they're not adding value. This is an imaginary depiction with no basis in fact. Pipsally (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

text:  I reckon, if you're going to remove papal depictions for that one reason, you should remove depictions of several other figures such as Jesus, whose article image dates to 500 years following his death, and Moses, whose article image dates from 2 millennia following his time. Your argument that the images being completely made up, and therefore historically worthless when depicting people from centuries to millennia before seems to only focus on Popes, and not any other figure in history.119.18.3.165 (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

text:  While I don't agree with the wordings of IP above, I do think there is a value in including lead images, even those which are not contemporary with the topic in question. The page for Belisarius depicts a purported depiction of him, and Attila the Hun's lead image is taken from a 17th-century depiction. There are many examples of this all over this wiki, especially from late antiquity/early middle ages. The policy at MOS:LEADIMAGE suggests that this is fine — 'Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works'.  Leo's Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Leo-I/images-videos page uses a tenth-century depiction — other 'high-quality reference works' utilise non-contemporaneous imagery. The renaissance art-style is reminiscent of the Western Catholic and Roman revival, and so I think that this portrait of Leo in this context is perfectly fine and in line with MOS:LEADIMAGE. NestledNest (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I can see this rationale up to a point but equally this image is a generic neoclassical representation of a bearded old man in papal regalia of that period. You could write any 1st millennia popes name under it, so I think it's arguable whether it "illustrates the topic specifically"Pipsally (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that same sense, we could dismiss a painting of Christopher Columbus as 'a Portuguese man from the fifteenth century wearing contemporaneous clothing', or dismiss a bust of Tiberius as 'another first-century Roman nobleman'. In both cases, images can be useful in confirming the identity of the individual in question. Ultimately, if we wanted to remove all 'generic' and 'non-specific' lead images, we could remove the lead images for Pericles (Roman copy of 'generic' strategoi bust), Tacitus (modern statue of 'generic' Roman man), or Alcibiades (non-contemporary painting of 'generic' Greek fellow). I could just as easily label them as Themistocles, Cassius Dio, and Plato. In regards to the specificity of the art, this depiction of Leo also incorporates unique regalia (such as the proto-papal tiara — not in any contemporary art until the 6th century). It's not just 'any first millennia Pope' — the art indicates that it's well after early Christianity, but before the fashions of the high middle ages. With this in mind; I believe that this art is specific, that it is distinct, and that it reflects the sort of art a 'high-quality reference work' would use. NestledNest (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

text:  Just writing this update to inquire into whether if any objections have been raised. If there are no further points of contention, I will reinstate the Francisco Herrera portrait of Pope Leo I with regards to the above reasoning. NestledNest (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Pope Leo