Talk:Archbasilica of Saint John Lateran

message: The other articles on Italian basilicas use their proper Italian names because they are known moreso by their Italian names (outside the United States), even by English-speaking people: Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, Basilica Palladiana, Basilica della Santissima Annunziata di Firenze, Basilica di San Lorenzo di Firenze, Basilica di San Miniato al Monte, Basilica di San Zanipolo, Basilica di Santa Croce di Firenze, Basilica di Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari, Basilica di Santa Maria Novella, Basilica di Santa Maria della Salute.  Even many American institutions refer to the basilica by its Italian name.    These examples establishes precedence to move this article to the proper title, "Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterno" with a redirect from its lesser used (outside the United States) English translation.   --Gerald Farinas 02:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I'd seen this when posted. In the case of St. John Lateran, it's just plain not true; Wikipedia looks very pedantic for the move. And "Basilica. . . ." is almost never used in speech, and infrequently in writing, to precede S. Maria Maggiore, S. Maria dei Frari, and most of the others in that list. Bill 11:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: someone moved this article to the english title, and you're bent on using the italian name within the article. if you're going to do that, use at least ONLY the italian name, and not a combination of both. there's still 9 "st. john"s in the article. you could have done a quick find-and-replace if you wanted to use the italian version. also there's no such thing as a "st. savior" as listed under the 'Roman Catholic liturgy' section. the only 'savoir' christians recognized is Christ. and no pope has canonized Him saint yet (that i'm aware of). so its "Holy Savior" no 'and/or' needed. in italian (as in spanish) 'santo' and 'santa' are used for people, places, things, and concepts. in some cases it means 'saint', in others 'holy'. in this case, its 'holy'. 4.230.153.169 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Translation

message: *   Laterno doesn't exist; the name of basilica is Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano
===Support===
* Support The correct name is San Giovanni in LATERANO   not Laterno - St John in LATERAN
* Support Italian name is LATERANO, not LATERNO. AFAIK Laterno hasn't got any sense. GhePeU 10:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so if nobody opposes I can move the page! Nova77 20:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the page.  I had to delete the already existing redirect in order to do so. --Gerald Farinas 21:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, I have erased the warning. Nova77 00:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (old) Requested move

message: * Support The correct name is San Giovanni in LATERANO   not Laterno - St John in LATERAN
* Support Italian name is LATERANO, not LATERNO. AFAIK Laterno hasn't got any sense. GhePeU 10:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so if nobody opposes I can move the page! Nova77 20:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the page.  I had to delete the already existing redirect in order to do so. --Gerald Farinas 21:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, I have erased the warning. Nova77 00:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: 1. Stated that it is "known in English as Saint John Lateran Basilica". I've never seen or heard that, not once. It is usually referred to as "St. John Lateran", or, in full, "the Basilica of St. John Lateran".
2. It is thoroughly misleading to state that it is one of "the five great ancient basilicas". An "ancient Roman basilica" is something totally different from a Catholic basilica dating back to ancient Roman times: see the various basilica articles. What is "great" about these is their canonical status in the modern Catholic Church; as ancient Roman edifices, they were insignificant or late, qualifying rather as paleochristian. Furthermore, there are many churches in Rome that date back to ancient Rome, including some that are also canonically basilicas in the Catholic sense (S. Agnese in Agone, S. Clemente, etc.); and at least one salient example that is a basilica in the architectural sense (S. Sabina).
3. An enumeration of the other four is not needed, and is taken care of by a link to the :Category:Major Basilicas.
4. "Originally called Basilica Salvatoris and Archbasilica of the Holy Savior" is nonsense. The basilica system came much later than the origins of the church; the first is an (abbreviated) Latin name translated by the second; and most importantly, the phrase, as written, implied, that the church is no longer called that: but in fact it is, that's the current official name of the church (properly, Archibasilica Sanctissimi Salvatoris: Archbasilica of the Most Holy Savior) — the confession board at the entrance of the church so calls it.
5. "cathedral of the popes" is not as informative as it could be, and, again, somewhat misleading. Properly, it's the cathedral of Rome; the popes are the bishops of Rome.
Bill 11:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with 1-4, though number 5 doesn't make much sense.  The office of Pope is exactly the same as the office of Bishop of Rome.  The ecumenical powers that the Pope exercises are tied to the Roman see.  Thus, if the Pope resigned the episcopate of Rome, he would cease to be Pope.  Since Pope is merely a nickname for "Bishop of Rome", the terms "Cathedral of the Bishop of Rome" and "Cathedral of the Pope" are equivalent. Pmadrid 19:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hang on, I think I misunderstood your #5.  Here's an experiment.  If I were to say in the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis article that it is the cathedral of the Archbishop of St. Louis, would you object to that as well?  I.e. is your objection one of tying the cathedral to the person instead of the particular church?  If so, I think that's understandable, but it is notable to point out that the Pope's cathedra is in the Lateran and that, historically, it was his principal church and is now his seat de jure. Pmadrid 19:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the best writer, am I! Yes, a cathedral isn't to be tied to a person, but to the place. Yes yes, I would object to a church being the "cathedral of the Archbishop of..." That church is the cathedral not of the archbishop, but of St. Louis. On the other hand, it's useful to point out that the Lateran is the pope's church: your edit does the trick. Bill 20:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The cathedral is the seat of the bishop of the diocese, not as a person but ex officio. Cathedral churches have been shifted: see Bishopric of Sion, for one example: the cathedra is not inherently tied to the place. --Wetman 22:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Just noticed this today.) Wetman is right on this; I was mistaken. I do stick by my edit, though — no accounting for human stubbornness! — on the grounds of simplicity. The technically correct form is as Wetman says, but might as well kept the almost universal shorthand, "cathedral of Placename". Bill 14:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph

message: # FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: The following text has been deleted from the article, perhaps in error: "Twice the Lateran Palace and basilica have been rededicated. Pope Sergius III dedicated them to Saint John the Baptist in the 10th century in honor of the newly consecrated basilica baptistry. Pope Lucius II dedicated the Lateran Palace and basilica to Saint John the Evangelist in the 12th century. The church became the most important shrine in honor of the two saints, not often jointly venerated (but see Peruzzi Chapel, Santa Croce, Florence). In later years, a Benedictine monastery was established at the Lateran Palace, devoted to serving the basilica as a devotional to the two saints." The text appears informative and essentially correct. --Wetman 03:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted text

message: In attempting to use Wikipedia to label my own Rome photos, I realized that a photo on this page is mislabeled. The one labeled "Triclinium of Leo III" does depict not a triclinium at all. It is an apse, apparently called a tribune, with copies of the mosaics from Leo III's triclinium (dining room) in the ancient Lateran Palace (see that article, last paragraph of text, for a good description). Also found some other links identifying it.   Just thought I'd explain myself before I edit. And all because I am trying to be too anal in labeling my some thousand Italy photos (at this rate, I'll never finish). —LonelyPilgrim 05:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it would help if I would actually read this article. Still, I think the picture needs a better caption. —LonelyPilgrim 05:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Does anybody think this picture needs to be also (or perhaps instead) in the Lateran Palace article? —LonelyPilgrim 05:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The illustration of the "Holy Steps" does not show the Scala Sancta either. The naive text that accompanies the illustration here might be replaced with a condensed version of Scala Sancta, to the general improvement of this somewhat eroding article. --Wetman 10:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misidentified photo 

message: In the Lateran Palace section this article states "the words Sacrosancta Lateranensis ecclesia omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater et caput are incised in the main door".  But the article Lateran says that the inscription is "at the base of the columns on either side of the central entrance door", and reads "SACROS LATERAN ECCLES OMNIUM URBIS ET ORBIS ECCLESIARUM MATER ET CAPUT".  Which of these is correct, or are both correct?  --Blainster 04:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC the Lateran version is at the base of the columns. The Lateran account is a simple transcription of the inscription in abbreviated form. The full version is easier to read and should be preferred in my opinion. It appears for instance on this vase, offered by French President Charles De Gaulle as an honorary canon of the basilica. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 21:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inscription and location

message: Forgive my ignorance but the question I can here to clarify isn't really in either the article or the discussion.  What it the relationship between the names: St. John & Our Saviour?  The article and discusion lead me to think that Basilica of Our Savior at some point replaced St. John's which is no longer an offical name. Yet it is almost always as in this article in practice referred to as St. John's which would be incorrect or at least no longer correct.  I heard somewhere, (no, i don't remember where, hence I was looking it up here) that it is the Basilica of Our Saviour & Cathedral of St. John's Lateran BUT NOT Baslica of St. John's or the Cathedral of Our Saviour.  The only similar arrangement I know of is that in Monreal the same church is both the Basilica of Mary Queen of the World and the Cathedral of St. James the Greater. (editing my own comment per teh wikipedia article on same the Montreal Cathedral is Mary Queen of teh World completely replacing the St. James nae, so this doesn't help with St. John's/Our Saviour If someone could make quite explicitly clear the status of this church's name or names, I'd appreciate it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The full official name is (in Italian): Arcibasilica del Santissimo Salvatore e dei Santi Giovanni Battista ed Evangelista in Laterano. I added the missing bits. Gugganij (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still confused about the name 

message: I have defied the following instruction:
:
* Excluding the actual article from the category is unacceptable, because the category mechanism is intended to be two-way, ie to allow navigation from article to category as well as from category to article.  Removing this article from Category:Cathedrals in Italy breaks one half of this navigation.
* It is a deficiency of the current Category system that, while categories can be sorted by a specified alias, the name listed in the category is the article name and not the sorting alias.  Thus, in this case, attempting to use :Category:Cathedrals in Italy as a way of listing all cathedrals in Italy by the name of the city will not work where the article does not include the name of the city: "Basilica of St. John Lateran" can be sorted under R for Rome, but the relevant city is not obvious to someone reading the Category page.  Using a redirect page for the sort is a partial workaround for this.  A better workaround, if sorting cathedrals by cityname is really important, is to create a page with a table with, say, the name of the cathedral, the diocese, the city, the relevant saint, the current bishop, etc.  There is already List of the Roman Catholic dioceses in Italy which might be expanded in this direction. 
jnestorius(talk) 17:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Cathedrals in Italy 

message: Is this in Italy or in the Holy See? Can someone please specify this in the article? Stifle (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The church is located outside Vatican City's boundaries but with the principle of extraterritoriality, the Vatican controls it. –Howard the Duck 07:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Two points: 1. The Lateran Treaties stipulate that certain areas in and outside Rome are extraterritorial property of the Holy See (and not of the Vatican City). 2. By international law, extraterritorial areas (e.g. embassies) remain being part of the host country's territory (in this case Italy). Therefore, all papal basilicas (with the obvious exception of Saint Peter's) are on Italian soil. I changed the article accordingly. Gugganij (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which country? 

message: In the liturgical calendar revised after Vatican II, the former complex system of ranking feasts has been simplified. In order of importance today from most to least: solemnity, feast, obligatory memorial, and optional memorial.  The feast day of the Basilica of St. John Lateran has never been a solemnity.  In the former calendar it was a double of the second class.  In today's calendar it is a feast.  The confusion may have arisen from the fact that IN THE CHURCH ITSELF, the date of dedication (as well as the feast day of the patron saint) is celebrated as a solemnity.  This applies to cathedrals, basilicas, and parish churches.  Likewise, these two occasions with respect to the cathedral are celebrated as solemnities throughout the diocese.  I have changed the text to reflect his fact. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solemnity vs. Feast 

message: I am pretty sure that either the Lateran Basilica or the Lateran Palace (next door) or both were bombed by the mafia in response to John Paul II's anti-mafia statments. Should a section be added
--75.36.35.109 (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless you can verify the event. "Pretty sure " is not good enough. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Several months later on a sleepy summer night in Rome, bombs placed by the Mafia exploded in two churches in Rome, including the Basilica of St John in Lateran, the pope's cathedral in his capacity as bishop of Rome." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39484767/ns/world_news-europe/ — ceejayoz talk 16:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombing 

message: I doubt this is the official Latin title, since it contains a number of grammatical errors. In correct Latin, it should be "Ioannis", rather than Iohannes (standard Latin spelling and genitive case), and Baptistae and Evangelistae (again: genitive case; correct in the infobox but not in the text). See e.g. the article in the Latin WP. Now Vatican Latin isn't always faultless, but I cannot imagine they would give their main church an official title in pig Latin. In fact, so far I have not found any official source that gives the title in Latin, even though the internet is filled with references to that "official" name in bad Latin, often, no doubt, copied from Wikipedia. Greetings Dumbox (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have studied Latin and Greek for years and I am in total agreement that the grammar of the title, as it currently stands (three years after this comment was left here), is mistaken. I will attempt to find some indication of the Latin name of the basilica and cite it so this erroneous title can be corrected. — AJDS talk 14:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Official" Latin title 

message: Is the church named after a saint named St John Lateran? Or is it named after St John the Apostle, with Lateran(us) being just the name of the building, and the ancient Roman family who originally owned it? Koro Neil (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is the saint? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: It is stated in the article about the Curia Julia that the bronze doors in this basilica are from the Curia Julia, but I have not found the corresponding information in this article.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curia_Julia#/media/File:Ancient_Roman_Senate_Bronze_doors.jpg 31.211.201.66 (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The doors