Talk:Pope Pius X

message: I find no support anywhere for Pius X having relaxed fasting rules (Pius XII did so on two occasions during his papacy). In Sacra Tridentia (December 20, 1905) Pius X encourages daily reception of Holy Communion. In Quam Singulari (August 8, 1910), Pius X reduces the age for First Communion and First Reconciliation to "the age of reason or discretion" which is "about the seventh year". This is all I have been able to find in support of the items in the article - i.e., none having to do with fasting. I have ordered Lortz' book as referenced in the article to check the reference myself; however, I am going to delete the fasting portion for now as well as reworking. I will return it if I find support in Lortz or if someone can provide a reference with more detail.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.152.41 (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Relaxation of the Fasting Requirements

message: I cannot see his successor in Pope Pius X's panel. I've tried to modify it without succeed. Suggestions?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.164.29 (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, i solved. 80.104.164.29 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Can't see...

message: Strongly suspect that the picture you recently have included of Pius X is, in fact, of Pius IX. Can't be certain, however.
The picture is indeed, Pius X.--Carsjme (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Pius X 

message: A discussion occurred at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution about a solution to the ongoing style wars on Wikipedia. The consensus favoured replacing styles at the start of articles by an infobox on styles in the article itself. I have added in the relevant infobox here. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Styles infobox

message: The article states as fact that Pius X left instructions not to be embalmed, and yet his body many years later was not "corrupted" by decay. Has it ever been proven that his body was not, in fact, embalmed? Or are we taking this "on faith", as it were? --Spudtater 12:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Assuming miracles

message: * should this page be moved to "Pope Saint Pius X"? Pure inuyasha 21:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change. 

message: In accepting the Papacy, Sarto took as his Papal name Pius X, out of respect for his recent predecessors of the same name, particularly Pope Pius IX (1846–78), who had resisted persecution and fought against theological errors.
A bit of a slant here- everyone is against "errors," but Piux IX was not proofreader-in-chief who said "oh, you meant Elisha here where Elijah actually did that part."  The theological errors being referred to are almost certainly heresies of the time, and should be referred to more specifically as the actual doctrines suggested (or, at least, as "errors as considered by Piux X / The Catholic Church").  Persecution is also a bit of a strong word that usually implies the weak being oppressed by the strong, such as the Roman Empire's persecution of the Christians.  While Pius IX was chased out of Rome in exile, he was a political leader in a state being toppled, and was the guy with an army who normally got to rule others.  It's kind of an expected hazard of the job- I wouldn't say that Louis XVI was persecuted, for instance.  You reap what you sow.
I've tenatively rewritten this to be fighting against theological liberals (a bit of a wide net, feel free rewrite as more specific) and for papal supremacy (what with The First Vatican Council and all).
As it was in 1944, Pius X's body was not "corrupted" by decay, a condition that remains true even to this day.
Does anyone have a good, unbiased source on this?  If this is true, then frankly this is something that should be inspiring vast scientific interest into how that possibly could have happened.  I Googled some and I couldn't even find much in the way of either believing sources nor skeptical sites. SnowFire 21:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you've sold me.  I did some more research as well, and can only find canonization style sites.  [] seems to say that the phonemenom "hasn’t been systematically examined by science and no rational explanations have yet been offered," a claim which strikes me as reaaaaaaaally shaky considering how old the practice of autopsies are.  If the only sources are ones that are inclined to say it happened regardless of it or not, I'll put in a rewrite to make it more clear.SnowFire 05:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theological 'errors' and the uncorrupted body. 

message: An anonymous user clumsily added this in.  A quick Google shows that this theory is on extremely shaky grounds (people have investigated it and found no confirming records at the Polish church he was alleged to have come from), and, more to the point, it's kind of irrelevant.  This is worthy of, at most, a subsection in the currently non-existent Giovanni Battista Sarto article. SnowFire 19:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Pius X's father Polish? 

message: Diligens, I reverted your changes.  Here's why.
:Despite this, the pontificate of Pius X was one of the more controversial of modern papacies.
Do you deny that the papacy was controversial?  Saying that there's a controversy is perfectly NPOV, taking (unsourced) sides is usually not.
::I don't know why you say here about taking unsourced sides, because the omission (absence) of a statement is not doing so. And there are several problems with this portion: 
::*The most glaring is that it is a judgment without a verified, reliable source to back it. The policy says that any editor can excise such statements. This alone is sufficient.
::*What is meant by "modern" is difficult to say, for how many pontificates are supposed to be included, how far back?
::*What is meant by his "pontificate" being described as controversial makes it seem like the very fact that he was a legitimate pope was historical in question. And this is not true.
::*What is meant by his "pontificate" being described as controversial makes the connotation that there is some moral fault in, which is huge PoV no-no with a man canonized as a Saint.
::*The explicit description "one of the more controversial" itself suggests an extraordinary amount of controversy, and this is completely unnecessary because Popes by the very nature of their office and central position of a world-wide organization invariably have controversies when it comes to those opposed to the principles the Church teaches. The judgment that it was above average cannot be made. There have only been 2 more popes until Pope Pius XII who a length of time after his death saw controversy. The Popes of Vatican II stirred up an incredible amount a controversy that stil rages today among traditional Catholics, and the statistics of the effects of their reigns are incredible dismal.
:The pontificate of Pius X was noted for its conservative agenda and as one of the most controversial modern papacies.
Again, do you deny that Pius X was a theological conservative?  This is not POV, this is an accurate adjective of his policies.  "Conservative" is hardly pejorative.
::The word "agenda" has negative connotations connected with it, suggesting manipulative objectives that are carried out in a less than straight-forward or honest manner. That is a bias word; liberals love to use it. As for "conservative", it is a redundant word since all popes by the very nature of their office swear to uphold tradition. Also, mentioning the word suggests that the opposite can legitimately exist - that a pope can legitimately be liberal, but this is completely not true. The Church solemnly condemned liberalism as a heresy.
:Since 1898, Perosi had been Director of the Sistine Chapel Choir, a title which Pius X upgraded to "Perpetual Director."
I don't know anything at all about this issue, but I trust the good faith of previous Wikipedia editors who added this information.  Again, I hardly see any argument as to how this could possibly be POV; at most, I can see a request for sources via a fact tag.
::Good faith does not make an edit sacred or protect it from being removed. It only protects condemnation of the editor himself. This fact is totally out of place. All it is saying is that Pius X liked the Director of the Sistine Chapel Choir so much that he wished him to be so for the rest of his life. If this very unimportant fact is allowed, you might as well ask for a book to be written for this article here, and we can learn about what he thought of so many other people he had dealings with. Maybe we can learn about his cook and housekeeper, too.
:Pius X reversed ((fact)) the accommodating approach of Leo XIII towards secular governments
Although speaking of the fact tag, why'd you stick it on a comment that, by contrast, is grounded rock-solid in history texts?  Did you read further down, where Pius X rebukes the French government?  I mean, sure, more sources would definitely be good for this article.  If you want to go dig up some references, that'd be great.  But the fact tag is usually used for "fishy" statements that may be true but require some backup now, not general "it'd be nice to have" statements.  (Again, unless you think that this wasn't Pius X's policy?)
::I should have placed the tag further down in the sentence, if not at the end. It simply needs a source to say that St. Pius X reversed anything that another pope did. I deny that out of hand.
:Condemnation of the heresy of Modernism
Sigh.  Anti-Modernism is a perfectly serviceable header that succinctly states that Pius X was against it.  "Condemnation of the heresy of Modernism" is flagrantly POV that implies that the Modernists were the bad guys.  "Heretics" is a charged word and must be used with care; "The Pope considers Group X heretics" might be fine, but having the Voice of The Encyclopedia call them heretics should only be done when there's utter agreement.  By way of example, check out the Albigensian Crusade article and discussion; they are very reluctant to use the heretic word there, despite the Cathars being far nuttier than the Modernists.  Or heck, check out your random cults or fringe groups in any religion; pages on the Sufis or Jehova's Witnesses don't go into calling them heretics. SnowFire 18:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That word does not exist in my college dictionary, nor did the oath use it. No, St. Pius X did condemn it as the "synthesis of all heresies". NPOV means that a verifiable and reliable source said it. And St. Pius X's encyclicals say so. Are you calling his encyclicals unreliable sources? --Diligens 19:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know why you say here about taking unsourced sides, 
I was using that as an example of something actually NPOV, not saying that you had inserted that (since all you did was delete!).  For instance, if you saw the statement "Pius X was a horrible pope who senselessly attacked the heroic Modernists," then by all means delete it.
*"Modern" means roughly the 20th century in context.  I think that's pretty clear.
*Controversial is not a moral judgment.  It is a factual, historical statement that there was disagreement.  "Abraham Lincoln was a controversial president" is a 100% true statement that does not imply one bit of "moral fault" as you put it.  There have been controversial liberals (Pope John XXIII) AND controversial conservatives (Pius X).  Obviously, depending on which "side" you're on, some people may be controversial for "good" reasons.
*Along the same lines, if you think that the article was trying to imply that he was an Antipope in disguise, uh, I have absolutely no clue where you're getting that from.
*Sure the judgment that it was unusually controversial can be made.  Just because Popes get involved in controversies naturally doesn't mean you can't notice the amount of controversy generated.  This is doubly true when much of the controversy is internal and coming from theoretical "good Catholics" (and yes, I know, you'll probably say that they are just non-Catholics in diguise).  To go back to the Presidents example, US Presidents by nature also get into controversies, but no one would argue that Taft is pretty well universally considered a decent if boring president, while FDR is considered a national hero who is lionized by most, but there was (and still is) a significant minority who think that he started the decline of American society and "Big Government," and another different minority which believes that FDR was a warmonger who got the US into a needless war.  And then Andrew Jackson might be an example of a completely controversial president, with some people thinking of him as a great American Hero, and others considering him an insane populist who usurped the protections of government, with the controversy continuing both during his time period and now and no clear consensus emerging.
*I disagree that "agenda" necessarily has a negative connotation.  For instance: "reform agenda," "innovation agenda," and "environmental agenda," all of which sound positive.  That said, this is a tiny issue IMHO; if it's such a big deal, go ahead and change it to "conservative nature."  Gets the same point across.
*As for if a Pope can be conservative...  um...  I'm not really sure what to say to this.  Suffice to say, call Popes who focus on upholding tradition and the status quo conservatives, and Popes who have tried to adapt the RCC to changing times liberals.  There clearly must be some distinction here; there were different focuses if you compare Pius X and John XXIII, so there must be some way to describe the difference.  The one classically used is liberal vs. conservative.  Even if you disagree with the terminology, you surely admit that there is SOME distinction, and that the one that NPOV outsiders have generally used is conservative & liberal?
*I don't particularly want to tackle the choir issue too much, but who's to say it's irrelevant?  Apparently Pius X made Gregorian chant a priority and liked it.  Some more details and anecdotes here don't seem to hurt.  Yes, if this section gets too long, by all means set up a new article on "Gregorian Chant and Pius X" or something to move the extra details to, but it doesn't seem overlong at the moment.
*Why do you "deny that out of hand" that Pius X changed any policies?  You can't just assert that.  If you mean in general, there are countless examples of Popes changing policy of their predecessors- John Paul II apologizing for World War II, the Counter-Reformation, and all sorts of Italian political choices back in the Renaissance, for starters.  If you mean in specific, again, why?  It seems pretty clear that he did in fact change Vatican policy.
*That section is not on the encylical in particular, but Pius X's general policies against the Modernists.  He was against the modernists, so a reasonable section title could be...  anti-modernism.  More to the point, this is a neutral article on what actually happened historically.  In general, it doesn't particular matter what historical actors wanted their works to be called.
If this guess is wrong, my apologies, but I assume that you are a "conservative" Catholic (since you claim that there is no other type)?  I ask you as a Christian to another Christian to not let your own beliefs get in the way of a neutral article.  Look at, say, the Scientology or Mormonism articles and edit histories for scary glimpses at believers trying to rewrite history so as to fit religious dogma that doesn't actually have any backing in history.  Pius X can stand on his own just fine; let people judge him as he was.  There is no moral judgment in factually stating that many people disagree with his policies.  It is up to each person to decide what kind of Pope he was. SnowFire 21:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diligen's edit and the NPOV policy. 

message: :Image:PiusXCOA.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 ensure 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) 16:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:PiusXCOA.jpg

message: Just a quick note. The title for this page should read "Pope Saint Pius X" with the search term "Pope Pius X" redirecting to this page. I am unsure how to do this, if someone could do this for me, I would greatly appreciate it. 219.90.162.138 (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Title

message: I took the word "supposedly" out of the miracles section. While I agree that Wikipedia needs to be NPOV on miracles which includes a certain skepticism, the boy was not "supposedly" cured. Surely he was actually cured. The skepticism is whether it was miraculous or normal. Surely no one would suggest that this sourced account is a lie, i.e. that the boy died or continued to be ill for a long time and the parent pretended that there had been a cure. Also, "supposedly" is, for me, one of the worse words to use for simple skepticism. Perhaps we should simply assert the undeniable facts, such as that the parents attributed the recovery of their child. Perhaps there is no need to add a lot of skeptical words because by putting it in a section on miracles that is already accomplished. 71.39.202.111 (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miracles 

message: The claim that Pope Pius X's father Giovanni Sarto was actually Polish, born "Jan Krawiec," is erroneous. Records show that Pius X's father was Italian-born, being the son of Giuseppe Sarto and Paola Giacomello, who were married in 1784. All of these records are housed in the archives of the parish church of Riese. Resources on Pius X's Italian genealogy are the following:
Franceschetti, Francesco, "Gli antenati del Sommo Pontefice Pio X. Memorie storico-genealogiche", Collegio Araldico, Rome, 1903;
Marchesan, Angelo, "Papa Pio X nella sua vita e nella sua parola", Benziger and Co., Einsiedeln, 1904;
Gheno, Antonio, "La patria di Pio X", in "Rivista del Collegio Araldico" 1st vol. # 11-12, Rome, 1903.
24.59.38.194 (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope Pius X's father was not Polish 

message: Don't think so.  From the look of that kid, he was maybe 10 or 12, for sure under 15, which would mean it was taken before 1850.  The technology was not that good, as can be seen from other photos from  the period and later.  Plus that kid has the wrong hairstyle, the wrong clothing, and the wrong ears.  So that's pretty much for sure some other kid, maybe one born in 1935.98.118.20.206 (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo "as a young boy" 

message: The text block "Spiritually we all are her children" purports to be a quotation from Ad diem illum laetissimum. It is not an actual quotation as it stands but rather several sentences and paraphrases strung together, in one case even by the phrase "This, the Pope argues..."  Echevalier (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quasi-quotation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pope Pius X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218102213/http://www.zenit.org/article-7161?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-7161?l=english
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903231550/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp to http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I do not know why such a long introduction before article. These long philosophy or critic about pope’s teaching should be added at the end of this article, under the title “Legacy”, which is missing in the article. For the introduction one sentence would be sufficient, as for other popes is example. Let you see Italian, German, or French or other Wikipedia!Stebunik (talk) 10:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very long introduction 

message: On Wikipedia we have one article in Italian with title: Federico Maria Zinelli 
Very turbulent and dangerous circumstances were in his time, when he begun his service.  He wrote some books too, ex.gr.: Analitico e Sintetico. Discorso dell'abate Federico Maria Zinelli, Venezia, Tipografia Picotti, 1832 http://books.google.it/books?id=WntdXZlV4bAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Federico+Maria+Zinelli%22&hl=it&sa=X&ei=TPSjU-DQNOKR0AWD0IAQ&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAQ Stebunik (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop of Treviso was not ''Zanelli'', but ''Zinelli'' 

message: In article we read:
:In 1878, Bishop Zanelli died, leaving the Bishopric of Treviso vacant. Following Zanelli's death, the canons of cathedral chapters (of which Monsignor Sarto was one) inherited the episcopal jurisdiction as a corporate body, and were chiefly responsible for the election of a vicar-capitular who would take over the responsibilities of Treviso until a new bishop was named. In 1879, Sarto was elected to the position, in which he served from December of that year to June 1880.
New bishop was not nominated in 1879, but in 1880. I ask: How could be Sarto vicar-capitular from December 1879 to June 1880, if already 27 February 1880 was nominated bishop od Treviso Giuseppe Callegari, and consecrated 11 March 1880?    When is nominated new bishop, is not necessary vicar-capitular. Stebunik (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ”Mikor pedig röviddel azután a szentéletű püspök jobblétre szenderült, kanonoktársai őt választották vikáriussá, megadván ilyeténképpen a címet is ama hivatalhoz, amelyet valójában már oly régóta betöltött.” (English from Hungarian: „When, shortly afterwards, the bishop went to better life, his fellows-canonians chose him as a vicarious, giving in this mode him the title to that office, which he had done so busy for so long time.”) They  (canonians) chose him (Sarto) however for vicarious immediately after the death of bishop (Zinelli). Stebunik (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicar-capitular 

message: In his earlier career as a bishop, he had had women removed from the church choirs under his control. Soon after becoming Pope Pius X, his Motu Proprio De Musica Sacra (Tra de Sollecitudini) issued on St Cecilia's Day 1903 said that the high voices in church music should be performed by boys: which led to the removal of the remaining Castrati from the choir of the Sistine Chapel. NRPanikker (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are lacking sources NRPanikker (talk).To correct this, please cite your sources.
Taram (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misogynist and Transphobe 

message: Contrary to what is said in the article, the body of Pius X was not well preserved. As he had not been embalmed (for reasons of humility) and had died in the heat of August, the body  was already inflated and began to decay when it was still lying in state. WARNING: DISTURBING IMAGES Cfr. https://www.cesnur.org/2009/tesi_papi_foto.htm .
Sorry about that. --Sylvain Leblanc (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation of the body of Pius X. 

message: The only reference I can find of this supposed event are a couple of old newspaper articles. Why isn't there any official reference of this? It seems more like a rumor meant to cause amusement and arouse anti-catholic sentiment in America. 2601:647:C900:B6C0:A9E3:80B6:FB5A:88D8 (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tango ban an American rumor?