Talk:List of popes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pictures

Beginning with Lucius I, this list contains a number of pictures that were clearly produced at the same time. Does anyone know the origin of this series? It seems to me highly likely that this is a stylized or idealized series of pictures that has nothing to do with historic images of what these popes actually looked like. For example, there were centuries in European history where beards were out of fashion, and yet the stylized pope pictures used in this list show them having beards (e.g. 8th century).

I think these pictures are almost certainly artists' recreations, not actual portraits, and therefore should be either identified as such or removed.

Adam_sk (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you click on the picture itself you will see where the picture comes from. From the copyright info page "This image is a faithful representation of an icon inside the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls the author(s) is unknown and the image itself is centuries old." Marauder40 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Place of Birth

The wikipedia page on Pope Stephen VIII says he was a native from Germany. Yet Pope Gregory V's page says he was the first German Pope and he came about 50 years after Stephen VIII. So wouldn't that mean the Pope Stephen VIII was actually the first German pope and not Gregory V? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kain6th (talk • contribs) 00:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Interregnum

There is an interregnum of varying length between the death of any pope and the election of his successor. So far as I can tell, only one of these gets a specific entry in the list - that between the death of Clement IV and the election of Gregory X. This was a fairly long interregnum, but I don't think it was such a difference in kind from other interregna (some lasting over a year) which do not warrant their own entry. I suggest this entry for the 1268-1271 interregnum be removed. ETA: I see there's one for the interregnum between Nicholas IV and Celestine V as well. But I don't see why these are so different as to warrant special entries. The fact of an interregnum should be evident from the dates. john k (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

When I was doing major editing to the list to compress a couple of tables I actually edited out a couple of the interregnum periods. I figured a couple months was/is normal especially in the early days of the church. I figured I should leave the longer ones in because there was usually a reason for the longer periods. Also if the list goes back up for FL status I am sure many people will say, "why the long period in between Popes." Marauder40 (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There's usually a reason for the longer periods, but it's usually "the Cardinals can't agree on anyone for a while." This is the reason given for all three interregna currently listed. (those between Clement IV and Gregory X, Nicholas IV and Celestine V, and Clement V and John XXII). We don't list longer interregna from the earlier centuries, and we don't list several quite long interregna from more recent times - in modern times an interregnum of more than about a month was pretty substantial. But the basic issue is that every interregnum has the same cause - the cardinals couldn't agree for a while. I don't see why individual ones should be listed. john k (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There were actually 4 major interregnums: you forgot about the period during the Council of Constance! It is there anyway, so no problem: just thought i'd meantion it. Jubilee♫clipman 17:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Poor Latin

I admire the enthusiasm of adding to every single name the superfluous "episcopus romanus." I think what is meant is "episcopus romae," Bishop of Rome, rather than "Roman Bishop" as many of them are not in fact Roman! In any case, by virtue of being Pope they are Bishop of Rome so the words do not really add anything at all to the table. I suggest omitting them altogether and just leaving the latin forms of their names as they are useful for research purposes.

If we were to be truly pedantic, the reference should not be to Regnal Names (regnal refers to kings) but rather to Pontifical Names. 18:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Quintavalle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintavalle (talk • contribs)

Actually, regardless of what you would like to think, episcopus romanus is the correct title. (If you have trouble understanding how a German pope could be a "Roman" bishop, think about how politicians become "Washington insiders." Like in real estate, location is everything.) That said, I would be fine with deleting the superfluous "Episcopus romanus" after every name, unless we would also like to list in Latin every title that each Pope claimed for himself. 76.106.56.225 (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Episcopus Romanus being superfluous, personally I would combine the columns for English and Latin names, since one is simply a translation of the other. BartBassist (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Martyrdom

While I understand the impetus behind changing language that claimed Popes were "traditionally martyred," this theory is wrong-headed and has resulted in a poorer article. First, it is wrong-headed because adverbs actually do in some circumstances convey the speaker's attitudes or feelings rather than simply modifying the nearest verb (witness almost every usage of "hopefully" in English: it almost never means that someone did something "in a hopeful manner"). In this particular case, "traditionally martyred" no more must mean "martyred in a traditional fashion" (as opposed to "believed--according to tradition--to have been martyred") than "unfortunately lost to history" must mean "lost to history in an unfortunate fashion" (as opposed to "believed--in what amounts to a misfortune for us all--to have been lost to history"). Furthermore, the attempted change to correct this (the one that refers to "no historical evidence") has resulted in a poorer article by making it sound like the belief in the martyrdom of certain popes is without foundation, when in fact, the tradition of the Church is itself evidence. On account of this, and given the fact that a significant number of the references to so-called "traditional martyrdom" were never corrected, I am changing all of the examples of the "no historical evidence" wording back to "Traditionally martyred." 76.106.56.225 (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I restored "martyred according to Church tradition" but did not restore "no historical evidence". I think we need some discussion of what "Church tradition" is as I confess I briefly confused it with Sacred tradition before realizing that it really isn't the same thing.

Let's look at the cases of the 1st century "Popes" one by one.

• Peter - (from the article Saint Peter) "head down crucifixion" is based on the apocryphal Acts of Peter and mentioned in Clement's Letter to the Corinthians

• Linus - (from the article Pope Linus) "The statement made in the same source ([Catholic Encyclopedia]), that Linus suffered martyrdom, cannot be proved and is improbable. For between Nero and Domitian there is no mention of any persecution of the Roman Church; and Irenaeus (1. c., III, iv, 3) from among the early Roman bishops designates only Telesphorus as a glorious martyr." In the Roman Martyrology, Linus is in fact not called a martyr."

• Anacletus/Cletus (from the article Pope Anacletus) "The Roman Martyrology mentions the Pope in question only under the name of "Cletus". Eusebius, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Augustine and Optatus all suggest that both names refer to the same individual. On the other hand, the Liberian Catalogue and the Liber Pontificalis both state that Anacletus and Cletus are two different persons." - OK, let's assume he was martyred.

• Clement I - (from the article Pope Clement I) "According to apocryphal acta dating to the fourth century at earliest, Clement was banished from Rome to the Chersonesus during the reign of the Emperor Trajan[1][2] [...and performed a miracle...) As punishment, Saint Clement was martyred by being tied to an anchor and thrown from a boat into the Black Sea. However, the oldest sources on Clement's life, Eusebius and Jerome, note nothing of his martyrdom." On the basis of this legend, you wish to characterize Clement I as "traditionally martyred" and yet complain about "no historical evidence", claiming "church tradition" as being the "historical evidence"? Seems a little thin to me.

• Evaristus - (from the article Pope Evaristus) "It was once supposed that all the early Popes were martyrs. There is no confirmation of this in the case of Pope Evaristus, who is listed without that title in the Roman Martyrology". Once again, you wish to characterize Evaristus as "traditionally martyred" solely on the basis that "it was once supposed that all the early Popes were martyrs" and rely on that supposition as "historical evidence"? Once again seems thin to me.

Thus, reviewing the cases of the first five Popes, we only have solid support to characterize two of them as martyred (Peter and Anacletus/Cletus). We have a legend to support the characterization of Clement I as martyred and we have no support for Linus or Evaristus as martyred except for the assertion that "It was once supposed that all the early Popes were martyrs."

How should we present this information in the table?

--Richard (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter first pope "contraversy"

I removed the section on Peter not being the first Pope due to numerous reasons. Including POV and balance issues. In order to be properly listed both sides of the arguement need to be included. But this is a list of Popes, not a place for placing contraversy and other items. If it is really wanted a small item can be placed in the list for Peter and linked either to a new article or to the article on Peter. Also please note that whether Peter should or shouldn't be in the list has already been discussed and is in the archive.Marauder40 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is Peter split in two? [I.e. 30 - 67 and post42/ante57 - 64/67(?)] There appears to be no need. All that is needed is a note pointing out the fact date his precise dates are unknown and appear to overlap with Linus's dates in some chronologies. Jubilee♫clipman 17:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed it. Jubilee♫clipman 21:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Number of Popes and Pontificates

The article states: there have been 265 men who have served during 267 pontificates.

This does not square with the number listed (unless I mis-counted). The article only lists 263 men in 265 pontificates plus one man who was nominated but never survived to be consecrated (pope-Elect Stephen). This adds up to 264 men in 266 entries (plus 4 periods of Interregnum). The numbers in the header do square with the referenced authority, however, so has one man been missed off our list, or has there been a further change in the list reflecting newer research (which will need to be documented), or, indeed, is the referenced authority wrong? I had changed the article to reflect the actual number listed but someone changed it back. Since I don't want to become involved in an edit war, I ask others to comment. Either way, something needs to change: the numbers or the list.

Number of pontificates per century according to the article (in my count): 1st 5, 2nd 10, 3rd 14, 4th 10, 5th 12, 6th 13, 7th 20, 8th 13 (12 popes, plus Pope-Elect Stephen), 9th 21, 10th 22, 11th 21 (19 men, Benedict IX included 3 times), 12th 16, 13th 17, 14th 10, 15th 11, 16th 17, 17th 12, 18th 8, 19th 5, 20th 8, 21st 1.

(BTW, if Pope-Elect Stephen is actually not considered to be a pope then his entry should be greyed out in same way the Interregnums are. This will avoid casual readers becoming confused. Just a thought and not entirely necessary, perhaps.)

Jubilee♫clipman 21:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I greyed out Pope-Elect Stephen because article header and entry both point out he is no longer considered a pope and that his removal is "no longer controversial". Jubilee♫clipman 22:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Have added numbers from actual count of Popes in article. Made other corrections/revisions. Jubilee♫clipman 06:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the numbers quoted (in updated form) from the Zenit article (which is based on Annuario Pontificio 2001) since they are out of date and contradict the numbers presented in this list (which is based on the lastest AP). I believe they are therefore irrelevent. I then added a quote from the Zenit article to explain the results of the research. I was not logged in but the edits appear as IP 81.158.65.202. I have added a hidden NB to help stop people from attemting to change the numbers to tally with the Zenit article (which might be wrong when it presents those numbers) rather than the actual numbers presented in our list. BTW, I have counted and recounted the entries and am convinced that the numbers 263 and 265 are correct as of today's date. Jubilee♫clipman 22:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter's name

Simon Peter's name is also given as "שמעון בן יונה (Shimon ben Yona)" and "Shimon Kipha" etc. It would be nice to know the original historical or ecclesiastical sources that state these names. If there is no source it has no place in the list. —85.178.126.160 (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Simon was a Jew. The Jewish language is Hebrew. The Hebrew for Simon is שמעון S(Shimon). The Gospels give his name as Simon son of Jonah (which is a typical Jewish construct). The name in Hebrew is therefore שמעון בן יונה (Shimon ben Yona). Simon was given the name Peter by Jesus. Peter means "rock". The Gospels are written in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Aramaic for rock is Kipha. Hence Shimon Kipha. The constructs of Hebrew personal names are outside the scope of the article. --JohnArmagh (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

First Pope

Why does this article not mention the first actual pope did not exist till around 400 or so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.22.85 (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The word pope, as the article states, is derived from the traditional salutation "father". Although the word became used in an official capacity in the late 4th Century it had been in use for some considerable time (not only in respect of the Bishop of Rome, but for clergy generally, of whom the pope was one). Similarly the post of Prime Minister in the UK - it is accepted that Walpole was the first person to serve in the capacity of Prime Minister, even though it was significantly later that the term was used in an official capacity. Clearly there is less argument over that latter case, primarily because the very existance of the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church is an anathema to the antagonists of that Church - and everyone wants to grind their axe at the least possible motivation. --JohnArmagh (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, So why does it not state the real facts and name all these guys like Peter who was not a "Bishop of Rome" as a Pope. Wikipedia should not cater to myth and stick to facts. The Catholic Church and the first century church have nothing in common. So if should be stated that this is all Catholic myth and not factual history. Peter was but on of the Apostles and not the leader. All were equal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.22.85 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The facts are that Peter was Bishop of Rome. Only someone with an subjective bias (in this case clearly anti-Catholic) would deny any facts in respect of Roman Catholicism. Your argument clearly displays such bias, as well as lack of awareness of the facts.

Peter was Bishop of Rome. James, the brother of Jesus was Bishop of Jerusalem.

Being Bishop of Rome did not mean Peter was the leader of the Apostles (though Jesus did confer a special position on Peter as the foundation of the church on Earth - read the Gospels).

The statement "The Catholic Church and the first century church have nothing in common" is like saying bread and toast have nothing in common.

Furthermore your argument that Wikipedia should stick to the facts would mean removing anything which cannot be proved from Wikipedia. And absolutely nothing can be proved beyond all doubt - which means no Wikipedia. --JohnArmagh (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter was not the Bishop of Rome, He may have served as a bishop (also called pastor or elder) of the church that met at Rome, but he would have been joined by other bishops, as no church had only one bishop. And did Catholic Church was not formed until the 3rd century at best. With the catholic worship not being anywhere close to the worship of the first century church's you can't really compare the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.22.85 (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but each see has one diocesan bishop - though they might have suffragan bishops overseeing various parts of the diocese. Peter was the Bishop of the See of Rome (not the Church of Rome as you seem to think). What became the Catholic Church was a direct succession from the organised church which existed from before the conversion of Paul. Indeed the church was already organised when the apostles elected a successor in place of Judas Iscariot. The only reason the Catholic Church is called the Catholic Church, and has been since earliest times, is that the creed, in the Roman rite, or Orthodox rite or in the Anglican communion refer to One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - catholic means universal, not Roman Catholic. It is not correct to say that the Catholic Church was "formed" in the 3rd Century. It already existed, emerging from the original followers of Jesus. To say that the Catholic Church cannot be compared to the church in the first century is the same as saying the Catholic Church of 2001 "cannot be compared" to the Catholic Church of 1401. Which is nonsense, because it is a direct succession of what went before - just as the myriad protestant churches which exist today are a direct succession from the Roman Catholic Church - none of them came into existence either spontaneously or from another branch of Christianity, but from existing contemporary theological thought going on within the existing Catholic Church at the time - which is precisely how the Catholic Church of the 3rd, 4th, 5th or whatever century "came into existence" --JohnArmagh (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And none of that is scriptural. Bottom line. The New Testament clearly lays out how each congregation is to be set up. But since you seem to not have any real Biblical knowledge and only follow the catholic line, then there is not point debating this with you as catholic's know nothing of the bible anyways. I pray that you will read the Word and follow it and not what men have perverted it into. I also pray that Wikipedia is not use by people who want to know facts and not fiction of history.

Typical judgemental response born of anti-Catholic (and hate-filled) prejudice and rhetoric - sticking to the fundamentalist-protestant party line. Do you believe that God created the universe in six days and needed a break on the seventh - or perhaps that stars are holes poked through the heavenly vault? (which, incidentally, is what scripture says). I pray that you re-read scripture for the purpose with which it is intended - not as a means to fit your own philosophical/ideological agenda. And read it without the hate you clearly have towards your neighbour weighing on you. JohnArmagh (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Popes and Papacy link

An anonymous user keeps trying to add several external links to a Popes and Papacy blog. Linking to blogs in general is usually frowned upon. The articles themselves have a lot of opinion as opposed to referenced fact. Any real content should be placed in the article. Marauder40 (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical reliability of the list

The list as it is now presents the list of popes as the Catholic Church has reconstructed it. This is not a problem in of itself but it should be noted that their reconstruction does not necessarily agree with the reconstruction made by other historians. In particular it seams to be a scholarly consensus that the early names on the list were not bishops of Rome since there was in fact no bishop of Rome at the time. Roger Collins in "Keepers of the Keys of Heaven" suggest that the tenth person on the list, Anicetus, might have been the first bishop of Rome.

I wanted to raise the issue here first before editing the article since I suspect the issue might be controversial.

I would also suggest that if we added a mention of the terms of office of the "antipopes" this would enhance the usefulness of the list. MathHisSci (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article says "The list of Popes chronologically lists the men who have been given the title Pope (or Bishop of Rome) by the Catholic Church." That is the purpose of this list. To list those people that Catholic church considers Popes. Antipopes are referenced in the list and other places. There are even entire articles on Anti-Popes. Many other articles talk about the different theories. IMHO, this list should be left what it says it is, a list of Popes as defined by the Catholic church. Marauder40 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well at the very least we should change the first sentence to say it "lists the men who are today given the title of pope by the Catholic Church". Indeed the current formulation is not just potentially misleading with regards to people like Linus who were only given the title of pope long after their death, it is wrong since many of the antipopes that are omitted were given the title of pope at one time by the Catholic Church or large sections of it.

But I do not think that settles the matter. The title of the article "List of popes" could as easily be seen as referring to a list of actual popes as determined by historians, not a partly mythological list determined by the church itself. Further if we compare with other lists of monarchs, such as lists of English monarchs or Swedish monarchs on Wikipedia they clearly separate office holders who are deemed to be legendary from those who really seam to have been rulers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathHisSci (talk • contribs) 17:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Annuario Pontifico is considered problematic from a historical point of view even by apologists for the Roman Church. It is composed by Popes who defeated their 'anti-pope' rivals, many of whom were considered legitimate at the time. Some 'legitimate' Popes were usurpers. Perhaps we could addend historical notes 2 the 'official' list.--Gazzster (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Western Schism in particular forced the Papacy to defend the 'legitimate' line as defined by the Annuario. After Urban VI was elected (under some duress) the very cardinals who elected him declared the election invalid. And even many Catholic historians acknowledge there is a case for this. In which case the line of 'antipopes' elected in opposition to Urban was the legitimate one. However, when unity was restored by the Council of Constance the papacy needed to put the seal of legitimacy on Urban VI to preserve its own prestige, and, especially,to claim legitimacy by apostolic succession and to disavow the idea that the Pope owed his legitimacy to a council of the Church.--Gazzster (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Support suggestion by User:MathHisSci to separate the list as done with monarchs for similar reasoning. Jeff Carr (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

support--Gazzster (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

oppose I think the list is fine as it is. If something like this separation is contemplated, can we see first exactly what sources you intend to use to support the distinction being drawn? It's easy to say "mythological list", but it's pretty clear that only the pre-Constantinian ones would be in any doubt. What is the source which you want to use? Tb (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

oppose Same reasoning as supplied by Tb Marauder40 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

oppose Fact that some historians put into question the reliability of the list does not mean authomatically that there are really good reasons to split it into "mythological" and "historical" parts. The earliest known catalogs of the popes circulated already in 2nd century (vide Irenaeus). Nothing certain is known about the first popes but their names are suported by reliable tradition. Clement of Rome is undoubtedely a historical person. Controversies around Liber Pontificalis concern rather the facts about these pontificates, but not their existence itself. Of course, the hierarchy in the Church was not so developoed at that time as today, but it does not mean the christian communities had no leaders. Leaders of the Church of Rome as early as in 2nd century claimed that their authority over the whole Church came from the fact that they are direct successors of St. Peter the Apostle, and there is no evidence that anyone in the Church had questioned this succession, even those who did not accept the claims of the popes to their supreme posistion in the church CarlosPn (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment But its not a question of denying that there was an unbroken line of succession. Of course, as historians, we cannot prove the succession from Peter beyond reasonable doubt (though it seems probable).We must remember the Annuario Pontifico is a historical document. It is not a researched document. It is a list of Bishops of Rome as recorded by the pontificates who sat in Rome. In other words, by the popes who actually retained power. There were numerous times when the succession was disputed, and with good cause. The Western Schism began because the succession of Urban VI was genuinely disputed, even to this day. In fact, the Council of Constance was so divided on the subject that it did not support any of the three popes, but invited all of them to resign. There were popes who were desposed unlawfully. There were the infamous Benedict IX, who was pope at least three times and on at least one occasion he gave up the job by selling it off, a very dodgy arrangement even at the time. --Gazzster (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No sure why you are mentioning the 3 terms of Benedict IX. That is addressed both in the lead and in the table. Most of the things you are addressing are addressed in articles on the individual Popes. Some issues are mentioned in summary form in the table itself, but this is a list, not something to address every issue every Pope has. Marauder40 (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I was using that and other examples to demonstrate my point that the list in the Annuario is often a post factum legitimisation of whichever pope happened to depose, murder, anathematise or otherwise conquer his opponent. In this respect the Popes acted like dynastic kings. But it seems that point is pretty much agreed.--Gazzster (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Support The issue of antipopes is that, although the Catholic Church today does not recognise them, at the time they were recognised by often sizeable factions within the established church - factions who considered the rival incumbent to be the rival pope. The inclusion of antipopes (differentiated by italics probably) would serve to illustrate at a glance periods of dispute or turbulance within the organisation. --JohnArmagh (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to add that having individual articles on the anti-popes is hardly a substitute for including them on this list, whose point is to give a chronological overview. If it were we would not need to list any of the popes that have their own article. I would also add that the Catholic Encyclopedia includes information on the anti-popes in their list of popes and it seems like a good precedent. MathHisSci (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually wouldn't mind including the antipopes on this list. I think including them in italics would be a reasonable compromise. This is true only for the historical antipopes, not the modern antipapal claimants, who do not have a statistically significant following compared to the overall size of the Roman church. As for the early popes, I think it is a fair point that the early ones did not use the title "pope" and that Peter himself did not use the title "bishop", however I think there is a decent scholarly consensus that these individuals were the leader of the Roman church (with followers confined to Rome and its immediate environs), even if the community did not have as strong a centralized authority as it has today. As such there is perhaps some anachronism in calling this a "list of popes" but no more than is standard among contemporary secular scholarship. Savidan 03:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the anti-popes should be italicised. The list already indicates that the early incumbents on the list were not official bearers of the title "Pope" in the Latin regnal name - which gives the contemporary title rather than the historical one. JohnArmagh (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)