Talk:Pope Gregory I

message: The Disinfobox for Gregory seems to have no way to add the information that this is an imaginary portrait by Carlo Saraceni or his studio, in the Museo Nazionale Romana. Meanwhile it "informs" us that we may address him in person, sdhould we run into him, as "Your Holiness", in a large Disinfobox. --Wetman 00:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. Gentgeen 02:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I tried of course. --Wetman 06:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disinfoboxes

message: On the left side of this section, there is a photo of a manuscript drawing of St Gregory with a dove. According to the German Wikipedia, this drawing depicts Venerable Bede (Beda Venerabilis) and not St Gregory.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beda_Venerabilis   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefsaks (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The German Wikipedia has an entirely different drawing.  Both Bede and Gregory are shown with a bird nibbling on their ear, but you can tell this one is Gregory by the red clothes and the papal tiara sitting on the desk.  Tb (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry, again the German one is wrong.  Look at the discussion on the image itself and the one on the Bede page that it points to.  Tb (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. According to this site of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, the figure depicted is Jerome (as the author of the Life of St Paul which is accompanied by the illustration). Iblardi (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iconography 

message: Hey Wikipedia, Um... My name is Karen, and I'm is eighth grade. I had to research popes on the internet for my history, and we had been studying Pope Gregory today... HE DRESSED LIKE A MONK!!! Or at least my history book says so, the pictures you have of him are in flowing robes, and I researched monk's robes, and they are way more simple. What is going on. (I loved the article though! Thanx for it!)
Thank you for listening... Actually I guess you're reading, but thanx anyway!
~Karen
:It's an imaginary portrait, painted in the eighteenth-century, which the information box doesn't make clear but should. --Wetman 05:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The article says that Gregory was the last of the Latin church fathers. The same is claimed in the article for Isidore of Seville. Other sources seem to indicate that either Isidore, or even Beda was considered the last father. I will delete this part of the article. -- Zz 12:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "last" of an artificial category is uninformative to the general reader. A more useful question: are the qualities in Gregory's career that incurred such a title well expressed in the article? --Wetman 18:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of patristics? 

message: why is one of the headings "Servi servorum Dei"? This translates to "servants of the servants of God" as least as best as I can tell. Does this have some relation to Gregory, or am I wrong in translation? If bot are not, shouldn't we change this?24.14.33.61 01:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: This statement is hard to pin down. Catholic Encyclopedia says Pope Leo I 440-61. No I haven't checked the Wikipedia article. There were a lot of false starts on chastity. The idiot article List of sexually active popes thinks since "the Middle Ages." Despite the superficiality of that article, a lot of work has gone into research there. Student7 (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gregory who moved (in fits and starts) against clerics with mistresses and wives was Pope Gregory VII: see Herbert Edward John Cowdrey, 1998. Pope Gregory VII, 1073-1085, ch. 3.6.1 "The campaign against simony and clerical unchastity", p. 242ff.--Wetman (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chastity

message: Most of these questions will just vanish if the article is put into proper format with proper notes on all the major ideas. I did a little work on the bottom rendering all those confusing foreign names into proper cite webs. I can't get that far right now but it needs the fairly routine dog work if anyone cares to take a hand. Quite often formatting is 90% of the problem but I guess it is easier to argue. Thanks.Dave (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: formatting answers

message: I left the one quote in. This section does not provide (as promised) a "varied" opinion on Gregory. It rather gives an opinion of an expert in medieval history but a biased observer IMO of religion. He is nearly anti-religious/anti-Christian in the opinions given here. So his opinion on Gregory's administration may be valid. Not at all sure about his opinion about Gregory's religious beliefs or theology. Student7 (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote by Cantor is so bias as to give little insight into Gregory's writings.  Instead of referring to Gregory as "a superstitious and credulous monk" he could have noted that Gregory had been a monk of great faith.  In saying that Gregory was "...excessively devoted to saints, miracles, and relics" one has to wonder if Cantor had forgotten that the person he was talking about was a Catholic pope.Ranp (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems pretty accurate to me, and I'm a member of an order named for Gregory.  It's a fair criticism.  It's not isolated; the point is to show that, as it says, opinions vary.  There's plenty of positive stuff, and Cantor isn't negative in fact, just trying to say that, by modern lights, Gregory's writings are mixed. Tb (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cantor

message: There was nothing on this page about what is is a patron saint of. I find it hard to believe this was simply an omission and suspect it's the result of some lengthy Wiki-battle or revert war. I went ahead and added information about this (musicians, singers, students, teachers) since this is notable, verifiable, non-original research, and neutral point of view. However, to bring the article in line with other articles, I tried to add such a section to his info box, but was unable to do so. Interlingua 12:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Patronage

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was no consensus to move to either the proposed title or Pope Gregory the Great. Jafeluv (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pope Gregory I → Gregory the Great — More common name by far. Srnec (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - I don't think a debate is needed in such a clear case of duplication. Pope Gregory the Great would be fine with me. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the move I proposed, but I oppose a move to "Pope Gregory the Great". The only reason "Pope" stands in front of the name is because "Gregory I" is ambiguous. "Gregory the Great" is not. I would prefer to either keep the consistency wholly (i.e. the current title) or break with it wholly as an exceptional case (the proposal), and not to go halfway. Srnec (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I made some small changes. Small improvements. I hope I will be welcome. --Davide41 (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Gregor is the leader of the flock (grex, "of the flock, gregis), similar to pastor and vigilant in that particular sense. An Etymology section that doesn't note this is incomplete. I'd add it myself but some RandyInBoise will tag it .--Wetman (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregor: ''grex, gregis'' "flock" 

message: The following was deleted for lack of reference.
"In line with his predecessors such as Dionysius, Damasus, and St. Leo the Great, Gregory reasserted the primacy of the office of the Bishop of Rome. Although calling the bishop of Rome the "Pope" was not yet a widespread custom, he summed up the responsibilities of the papacy in his official appellation, as "servant of the servants of God". As Benedict of Nursia had justified the absolute authority of the abbot over the souls in his charge, so Gregory expressed the hieratic principle that he was responsible directly to God for his ministry.
Gregory's pontificate saw the development of the notion of private penance as parallel to the institution of public penance. He explicitly referred to the ancient Christian doctrine of Purgatory, where a soul destined to undergo purification after death because of certain sins, could begin its purification in this earthly life, through God-graced good works, obedience and Christian conduct, making the travails to come lighter and shorter.
Gregory's relations with the Emperor in the East were a cautious diplomatic stand-off. He concentrated his energies in the West, where many of his letters are concerned with the management of papal estates. His relations with the Merovingian kings, encapsulated in his deferential correspondence with Childebert II, laid the foundations for the papal alliance with the Franks that would transform the Germanic kingship into an agency for the Christianization of the heart of Europe—consequences that remained in the future.
More immediately, Gregory undertook the conversion of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, where inaction might have encouraged the Celtic missionaries already active in the north of Britain. Sending Augustine of Canterbury to convert the Kingdom of Kent was prepared by the marriage of the king to a Merovingian princess who had brought her chaplains with her. By the time of Gregory's death, the conversion of the king and the Kentish nobles and the establishment of a Christian toehold at Canterbury were established.
Gregory's chief acts as Pope include his long letter issued in the matter of the schism of the Three Chapters of the bishops of Venetia and Istria. He is also known in the East as a tireless worker for communication and understanding between East and West. He is also credited with increasing the power of the papacy."
I do not have the time to research this material now, but I suspect it is based on truth. Anyone else having the resources is welcome to restore it with the reference. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Servant of Servants

message: Both occur in article... AnonMoos (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Eutychius or Eutychian?

message: under  "papacy" there is a mention of rivalry of the jews in the exarchate of Ravenna, is this rivalry between jews, or between jews and other parties, and how does this "rivalry" fit into the picture of a papacy being "beset". And what happend in "the south" at the endo of this sentence that points in the same direction..
"in Italy the territories which had de facto fallen under the administration of the papacy were beset by the violent Lombard dukes and the rivalry of the Jews in the Exarchate of Ravenna and in the south."
This sentence needs a reference!
As below i found some text that is not easy to understand in the light of what is mentioned in the article currently;
 In Epp., I, xiv, he expressly deprecates the compulsory baptism of Jews, and many instances appear in which he insists on their right to liberty of action, so far as the law permitted, both in civil affairs and in the worship of the synagogue (Epp., I, xxxiv; II, vi; VIII, xxv; IX, xxxviii, cxcv; XIII, xv). He was equally strong, however, in preventing the Jews from exceeding the rights granted to them by the imperial law, especially with regard to the ownership by them of Christian slaves (Epp., II, vi; III, xxxvii; IV, ix, xxi; VI, xxix; VII, xxi; VIII, xxi; IX, civ, ccxiii, ccxv). We shall probably be right, therefore, in attributing Gregory's protection of the Jews to his respect for law and justice, rather than to any ideas of toleration differing from those current at the time.
His concern with justice for Jews was limited. While he insisted in his letters that Jewish creditors were not to be defrauded, oppressed, or vexed unreasonably because they were protected by Roman law, he nevertheless believed that biblical prophecy foretold their conversion, and he adopted polices of “persuasion” that harmed Jews economically. A synagogue was moved because its services could be heard by Christians; slaves of Jews could claim freedom if they converted to Christianity—their masters could not sell them, and escaped slaves could not be returned to Jewish owners.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc47 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  rivalry of Jews in the exarchate of ravenna? 

message: I'm not a music historian, and am pretty ignorant of the subject, despite being a fan of early music and Gregorian chant. So I was surprised to learn not only that the traditional ascription to Pope Gregory is untrue, but that it's the result of a campaign "propaganda" (by whom or why, we're not told). And there's no source cited. I cleaned up the passage a little bit, removing a nasty passive and at least mentioning the traditional ascription in a positive sense -- but the tone of this is negative and inappropriate for an article about Gregory. If these statements about Gregorian chant's later origins are true, someone in the know needs to cite a source. LonelyPilgrim (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregorian chant 

message: Dear all Users of Wikipedia,
I think it has become apparent that the picture that I am trying to protect for this article, Pope Gregory I, is being reverted by many of you. Many of say that it's not what he really looked like, or that a simple drawing is better than a beautiful renaissance painting. I will just want everyone to think first before they go straight to reverting this picture. Who wants to read an article about one of the greatest popes ever, with the main picture a simple medieval cartoon. But if your feelings are that strong, and you are going to monitor this article 24/7 and be on wikipedia all day long just to win a battle over a picture, than fine. You can have your cartoon. All I ask is that you think about it first. 
Sincerely, 
24. 146. 185.201  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.185.201 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one have thought about it. It's misleading to have a renaissance painting that cannot possibly depict him correctly (the dress is probably wrong, the tiara is renaissance, not medieval, etc). A medieval illustration (which is in its own way just as beautiful) makes it clear that we don't know what he looked like, and is more likely to be closer to a correct depiction of his dress. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The historical inaccuracies alone kibash the image in my view.  There may be other depictions closer to the period that are more colorful than the one presented, but I agree that an imaginary image from a later time, with historical inaccuaracies should be replaced by a better image. Now please, IP24, stop edit-warring over this.  Or log in under your user name so we know who you actually are.   Montanabw(talk) 21:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

text: We've thought about it. The Saraceni is Baroque, not Renaissance, by the way, and the miniature is in no sense a "cartoon". Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  24.146.185.201 

message: I see from the comments of users who read my message still don't agree with me. I understand many of you think that the picture I chose is inaccurate, and made in a different era. I am just saying that it fits the article better than the medieval drawing. The medieval drawing is not detailed, and although it was made in the period gregory lived in and shows him wearing the clothes he might have worn, it doesn't mean it's going to make the article look better. There is already enough medieval drawings in the article. I'm just asking that the first one that everybody sees when they first come to this article is the one I'm trying to keep there. I will like that everyone please rethink this.
24. 146. 185.201  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.185.201 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP 24 

message: I edited this article with the comment, 'Removed phrase that is POV or anachronistic or both, "head of the Catholic Church".'
My edit was quickly reverted with the comment "Please see WT:CATHOLIC#Papal article consistency and discuss on the talk page if necessary"
The cited policy contains:
Point 2: There is consensus that the construction "Pope {name} was the head of the Catholic Church from ..." can be used to address the issue of redundancy.
I note the modal auxiliary "can"; this is quite different from "shall" and certainly does not mandate that the construction be used.
I stand by my contention that the construction is "POV or anachronistic or both" because it projects a modern Roman Catholic interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, but that matter was not resolved at the time that Gregory held the office. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "head of the Catholic Church" be used? 

message: I would like to add to the name of this Article Page, the full title as it is truly needed:  "Pope Saint Gregory the Great"....... His full title......
All 7 of the Gregorys I specialised  in ....... and I would like the opportunity of making the page/ s..... MacOfJesus (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: disambiguation

message: I've found all over the Internet, in angel dictionaries, and also in Wikipedia the following list of the seven archangels, supossedly made by pope Gregory I: Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel (or Anael), Simiel, Oriphiel and Raguel. Anyone here knows in which work did he write this? I know this is a difficult question, since pope Gregory's work is HUGE, but maybe someone has a vague idea of where could it be. I can't find the source for this list anywhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.23.220 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert on this topic. But I did find a website (reliability unknown) that presents what looks like a pretty good article on Pope Gregory. In the penultimate paragraph it gives a hint: that he wrote(?) a "detailed exposition of various religious conceptions which were current in the Western Church" that included "views on angelology". I don't know what specific work it's referring to, but if true, it ought to narrow the search among his compendious output. Evensteven (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the website is referring to his Gospel Homilies, where he wrote about the nine choirs of angels, but he never mentioned there other archangels besides Michael, Gabriel and Raphael. As far I can see, pope Gregory's list of archangels first appeared in Gustav Davidson's Dictionary of Angels, but without any hint of sources.84.125.23.220 (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Well, the names are not all given in the Gospels. Gregory also studied Augustine thoroughly, and summarized materials found in the early church fathers. I'm just guessing now, but that's more the type of writing I was thinking of - even a compilation? You certainly seem to know more than I do, but does that prompt another idea? Sorry, but I can't think what else to suggest. Evensteven (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Saint Gregory and the seven archangels (help with sources)

message: I found an academic book that claims Dialogues of Pope Gregory I are pseudepigraphical.
Should this claim be included in the article?–BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialogues pseudepigraphical 

message: Please review MOS:SAINTS where the operative lines are "Articles on popes who are also saints are titled according to the guidance in Popes above, with any necessary redirects from the forms with "Saint". For example, Pope Pius X, with redirects from Pope Saint Pius X and other forms; but Saint Peter rather than the less recognizable Pope Peter." This applies not only to the title of the article but also in the article text. See the very first sentence of WP:NCCL: "This page contains guidance on how to title articles about members of the Christian clergy (popes, cardinals, bishops, etc.) and saints, as well as on how to refer to them in the article body." Kindly restore the first sentence to remove the "Saint" in the name. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing the title with the lead intro sentence.  See WP:LEADSENTENCE.  It's very clear that this sort of honorific is okay, just like Paul McCartney's lead lists him as "Sir" (and this is referenced in the LEADSENTENCE policy).  The title and lead intro sentence do not have to match exactly, within general considerations of consistency.   Deus vult (aliquid)!   Crusadestudent (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint... 

message: Before my edit, the second sentence of this article read "He is famous for instigating the first recorded large-scale mission from Rome, the Gregorian Mission, to convert a pagan people to Christianity." But the fact that Pope Gregory's mission was *to England* is absolutely key to why he is famous for this mission. This mission, sent to carry the form of Christianity that had Roman authority to southern England, was disrespected by the British bishops, and this opened up a clash with the native "Celtic" Christianity from Patrick's Ireland that had already travelled mission-fashion to Scotland (St Columba), Wales (St David) and northern England (St Aidan), and even to the Continent (St Columbanus). Pope Gregory's mission was symbolic of, and key to, the Roman church reaching out to bring all Western Christianity into line. This is just common knowledge of my generation which deserves to be passed on. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I altered the top paragraph 

message: Reference 8: F.L. Cross, ed. (1515). "Institutes of the Christian Religion...
I believe the Institutes were published in 1536 so I'm not sure what "1515" in the reference means.
Goodell (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong date for Calvin's Institutes? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I changed the line Donatist "heresy" to "sect", as I found it representing a non-objective and biased view, somewhat defined by perceptions of established orthodoxies, etc. It was reverted by User:Ealdgyth who understandably points out it is how it is often described. However, I want to start a discussion. I haven't read much on Donatism specifically, and what I have read lay buried in popular history books covering much broader topics, but a quick and superficial search shows that for example Encyclopedia Britannica makes no use of the word "heresy". Neither does dictionary definitions on Dictionary.com, nor the American Heritage Dictionary, nor Oxford Reference (from the Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, which ought to be a good authority, and who limits itself to calling it a schismatic body), nor Merriam-Webster, all of whom prefer sect, or a schismatic group. In books, however, I may imagine "heresy" being used for rhetorical/story-telling effect, as well as obvious use in "Orthodox" sources, which subscribe to or fall in line with Catholic dogma. Other dictionaries do make use of the word heresy, like Collins. To me, at least, heresy carries certain un-objective and negative connotations, of something deviating from the "one truth". Granted, the same Merriam-Webster as referenced earlier, describes heresy among other things as "adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma". In that respect, calling it a heresy makes sense. But isn't defining whose dogma to follow in itself a subjective decision? Anyways, I do believe it carries a slightly judgemental and negative connotation, which may be problematic. Just to make it clear, I don't have any strong opinions on the matter really, nor any theological or religious opinions or ties. So I am completely open to other arguments, and learning if I am mistaken or wrong, which I might be.--Euor (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, I don't hold with Californicating over such matters - whether a view is, from the Catholic pov (obviously), heretical or not, is a simple matter of fact, depending on whether or not it was so declared, usually by a church council.  And if it is, we should make this clear, and not pussy-foot about with the language (especially as there are no Donatists left to upset).  But in this early case, even Catholic sources like the Catholic Encyclopaedia seem rather equivocal, mostly calling it a sect, but also saying it was heretical, though not making it very clear when this was declared.  All the same, I think User:Ealdgyth is as usual right. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heresy or sect? 

message: I've removed three categories which describe Gregory as Benedictine, because the traditional claim that he was is discredited. Further, there is no reference to any claimed Benedictine status in the body of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryjohnsidney (talk • contribs) 09:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of categories referring to Benedictine 

message: Reference 13 (Dudden 1905) is clearly wrong.  Felix III became Pope in March 483 during the reign of King Odoacer.  Theodoric was not in Italy at that time, and did not invade it until 489. He did not supplant Odoacer until March 493, a year after the death of Felix III.  The sources of this information are the Wikipedia biographies of these personages.  The recommended action is to delete reference 13. Richard Lugg (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with this, and other instances of Dudden 1905 should be vetted. The stuff about Theodoric was already there in 2007, unsourced. Elizium23 (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Felix III