Jump to content

Talk:Pope: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Celestine IV: new section
Line 146: Line 146:


This list of shortest-reigning popes says that [[Pope Celestine IV]] died before consecration. So does his article. This is unclear though: what kind of consecration would he have had? He was already a bishop. He could not be a valid pope before being consecrated bishop and he already held a see as Cardinal-Bishop for several years before his election. The sources online don't say anything about consecration, just that he died after 17 days. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 19:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This list of shortest-reigning popes says that [[Pope Celestine IV]] died before consecration. So does his article. This is unclear though: what kind of consecration would he have had? He was already a bishop. He could not be a valid pope before being consecrated bishop and he already held a see as Cardinal-Bishop for several years before his election. The sources online don't say anything about consecration, just that he died after 17 days. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 19:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
:The word "consescration" may be inappropriate, but someone becomes pope immediately when he accepts after his election. He was a valid pope. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 23:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:01, 5 May 2013

Former featured article candidatePope is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 3, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Rewrite The Section ==Saint Peter and the origin of the office==

Catholics believe that this passage shows Jesus establishing his church on the shoulders of Simon son of John (Peter). Some authorities have previously asserted that the "rock" Jesus referred to was Jesus himself or was Peter's faith. The general scholarly consensus is that this account is accurate, and one modern scholar agrees with the straightforward interpretation that the "rock" Jesus refers to in this passage is Peter.[1]

This section is more than SLIGHTLY biased. It makes it sound like no one challenges this position and as though the CATHOLIC consensus is the only consensus on the topic. This is not the consensus of ANY PROTESTANTS, which are a much larger portion of the world than catholics. One citation does not cover the general consensus. Nor does one citation represent a stout and unified objection by a mass of people which does form a consensus. Kyle Mullaney

As a protestant who personally does not believe that Peter was ever in a position anything like Pope, I have no problem with an encyclopedia article about the Catholic Church office of Pope explaining the Catholic Church's position/belief about how said office was established. There are many articles about various aspects of different religious groups which explain that group's beliefs; it does not necessarily mean that other groups also subscribe to the same beliefs. I don't see that it needs to be changed. LarryJeff (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off, over half of all Christians are Catholic, so protestants are in no way any sort of larger portion of the world than Catholics. Second, there are numerous protestant scholars who do believe that the rock refers to Peter. In fact, I would say that they are the majority among even Protestants. But that's beside the point as this presents the Catholic belief as the Catholic belief. It begins with "Catholics believe...". Farsight001 (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that when the two greek words that denote a rock in this passage are used together it is clear that petros is the smaller and generally used as a smallish stone that could be held in the hand where as the other denotes a much larger stone. I have no problem with the statement that the catholic church claims that Peter is such and such so long as the proper exegesis is there to show that it is not FACT it is false interpretation and should not be called true or left as appearing to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle.Mullaney (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ O'Connor, Daniel William (27 November 2009), "Saint Peter the Apostle", Encyclopædia Britannica, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today.

I only recently learned - through web comments - that Catholics are convinced that when Jesus was telling Peter that He (Jesus) was making Peter the head of the church.....Jesus was making Peter the head of the Catholic church. I was stunned when I read the first comment that stated that (and used the Bible as confirmation). I found myself rereading that commenter's sentence twice just to make certain I had read it right -- I HAD !....that's when I was stunned, realizing yet ANOTHER lie the Catholic church has been telling its believers (I have read about a number of mis-information "facts" that the Catholic church apparently has its followers convinced of - that are also nowhere in the Bible. In fact, I question that the Catholics have their OWN version of the Bible......why can't they simply use the regular, "protestant" version ? makes me wonder what ELSE the Catholic church changed - in THEIR Bible version).

First, when Jesus was telling Peter that He (Jesus) was making Peter the head of the church - Jesus was NOT talking about the Catholic church (which was not even started until at least hundreds of years later).....Jesus was making Peter the head of the early Christian church (which was composed of Gentiles, a few Greeks, a few believing Hebrews - although most of the Hebrews rejected Jesus as the Messiah), which at that time existed ONLY in the Holy Land (during Jesus' ministry/Crucifixion/Resurrection, and shortly afterward, until Jesus' disciples (and other early Christians) started spreading the Good News (aka Gospel) outside of the Holy Land).

Second, there is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible saying Jesus was making Peter the head of the CATHOLIC church. The word "Catholic" is nowhere in the Bible, and as I have already noted, the early Christian church was NOT the start of the Catholic church. THAT particular "established" form of Christianity would not be even formed yet until much later, and AFTER the news of Jesus's life, Crucifixion and Resurrection spread eastward through Cappadocia and THEN went northwestward into post-Roman Italy.

Thus, I would suggest that the section subtitled "St. Peter and the origin of the pope" be changed to confirm the Jesus was NOT telling Peter that Peter was the head of the Catholic church, but that Jesus was telling Peter that he was to be the head of the early Christian (non-Catholic / PRE-Catholic) church).

My sources: any world history book, but especially, the New American Standard translation of the Bible (I use the NAV because it uses more contemporary language, but the message is not changed, and per my previous Senior Pastor, theologians have compared the various translations against the original Hebrew scrolls.....and the NAV is the CLOSEST to those scrolls. In fact, my pastor told us that the NAV matches almost EXACTLY "word-for-word" what the Hebrew scrolls say in each of the original biblical scrolls. That's proof enough for me, that I have the best translation.

Gail Noon, 03/16/2013 (69.224.46.135 (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I think you are confusing the Wikipedia article's summary of Catholic doctrines with an essay on whether those doctrines fit someone's notion about truth. The purpose of this article is to summarize Catholic positions on the papacy as well as any disagreements among other major Christian religions, all properly verified with reliable sources. The article is not a place for you, me, or anyone to try to argue our personal beliefs about the papacy. There are lots of blogs and other forums where you might better spend your time espousing your personal beliefs. To understand how Wikipedia works, you might begin by reading WP:5P and continue clicking the blue links to various policy pages. Also please read WP:FORUM. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The pope is the antichrist" - Martin Luther

"Protestant Reformers criticized the papacy as corrupt and characterized the pope as the antichrist...", whoa that's a bold statement to make without any source to back it up! But then, the writers of wikipedia are all highly objective and not at all biased, so I think it can be taken at face value. 151.15.41.235 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here you go: http://books.google.ca/books?id=hLxDnAMaUgQC&pg=PA141&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=antichrist&f=false. Martin Luther himself believed and taught that the papacy was itself the antichrist. It is in his writings and has been discussed in many other historical texts . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.136.53 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Are they Catholic? No, they were heretics. I'm removing the "Antichrist" pictures as they dont belong here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.112.152 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation date.

Good evening,

Would it be possible to amend the caption under the picute of the current incumbent to something more like " Resignation date 28 February 2013 " vice the current wording.

TYVM

Mario Riendeau Gatineau,Qc "0V22c123" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0V22c123 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Esoglou (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fumata nera and fumata bianca

I should think that someone with permission to edit this page might want to link terms like "smoke," black smoke," and "white smoke" -- as well as fumata nera and fumata bianca to the Wikipedia page already titled Fumata nera and fumata bianca, which appears to be an orphan. 70.36.137.192 (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Cresix (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Pope has been elected-Update Request

A new pope has been elected but not named. Can someone with access please update the beginning of the article?PMChi (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/world/europe/cardinals-elect-new-pope.html?_r=0

We also need to try to make sure that any links to the new pope, Francis I link to the page that now exists for him under Pope Francis Catonsunday (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His name is Francis, not Francis I Mark.hamid (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas

removed, violation of TP rules Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX - do you have anything relevant to add to the article from a Reliable Source? HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Pope Francis as Incumbent

I'm just wondering is it appropriate to put Pope Francis as the incumbent? I mean yes he has been elected Pope and Habemus Papam has been declared but technically and legally speaking he hasn't taken office yet so wouldn't the office of the Pope still be Sede Vacante until his inaugural mass on March 19. I mean having him listed as incumbent would be like listing Barack Obama as President of the United States before he was officially sworn in. IMHO until such time as he is officially inaugurated I would like to suggest that he be listed as Francis I, Pope-Elect. What does everyone else think? TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church law is different from United States law. He is Pope from the moment he accepted his election, even before he was announced publicly with "Habemus papam" (We have a pope), not "Habebimus papam" (We shall have a pope). Esoglou (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks I see your point. Beside that its just a moot point now anyway. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of comments on Talk page

In all my years on the Wikipedia, contributing in 7 languages, this is the first time that I see an editor delete someone else's comments on the talk page! You will all agree that there was a shameful frenzy to be the first to add this or that bit of information. We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to earn brownie points for being the first. Being first counts for nothing, contributing solid incontestable facts and general information does. If that annoys you, then perhaps you should look into your tolerance of others' opinions. I thought the talk page was exactly that - a space for dialogue, even if such dialogue is controversial; it is here that we must vent our annoyance, rather than engaging in edit wars on the corresponding article page. Deleting my comments is as shameful as the behaviour I was alluding to. I’d like to hear the opinions of others on this matter, not someone who does not even have a user page – might as well be an IP. If I could see this is someone highly respected in the community, with many years of service, if I could see from his page indications of his or her sound judgement, perhaps then, I could accept the deletion. But not from someone without a face. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Francis I

Should be Francis I not just Francis. Sources have used the roman numeral!213.120.148.60 (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was officially announced was "Francis". If and when there is a Pope Francis II, Pope Francis will become Pope Francis I. Esoglou (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been extensively discussed on Talk:Pope Francis. The Vatican has clarified with news organisation that he is to be known as Francis and not Francis I. See also Vatican's own website where he is referred to as simply Francis. KTC (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requested

The last line of the lede says "The first explicit such occasion (after the proclamation), and so far the last, was the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in 1950." Wouldn't it be more concise and less confusing to just say "The only explicit such occasion after the proclamation was the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in 1950." 67.164.156.42 (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I consider this a minor edit. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requested 2

The last line of the lede mentions the Assumption of Mary but doesn't link to it. Please change this to link to the appropriate article. Philapathy (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 2 May 2013

The first reference to Annuario Pontificio in the first line of Official list of titles should be italicized. Philapathy (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)  Done Esoglou (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celestine IV

This list of shortest-reigning popes says that Pope Celestine IV died before consecration. So does his article. This is unclear though: what kind of consecration would he have had? He was already a bishop. He could not be a valid pope before being consecrated bishop and he already held a see as Cardinal-Bishop for several years before his election. The sources online don't say anything about consecration, just that he died after 17 days. Elizium23 (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "consescration" may be inappropriate, but someone becomes pope immediately when he accepts after his election. He was a valid pope. Cresix (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope&oldid=553695085"