imported>Peter Jackson |
imported>Pat Palmer |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{subpages}} | | {{subpages}} |
|
| |
|
| ==Article name and neutrality issues== | | == 'Papacy' is being moved, today, to 'Pope'; this Talk page contents also moved over to 'Pope' == |
|
| |
|
| I suggest we change the name to ''Papacy, History'' the goal is to get the major keyword first. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 00:48, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
| | Someone originally placed this article under [[Papacy]], but we found it impossible to search on the term Pope (which was redirected to [[Papacy]]. Thus today, I'm moving the contents of [[Papacy]] back to [[Pope]] and putting the redirect on [[Papacy]] instead. This means the page history prior to today will be on the [https://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Papacy&action=history Papacy page history]. No easy way I know to fix that, so I'm noting it here instead. |
|
| |
|
| '''I further suggest''' that we isolate the varying view points and their perspectives into different articles. This one can be termed the Vatican's, then we can do others on historical works and clearly identify the authors. I have a well researched text called "The Bad Popes." They were pretty bad. I also have a sanctioned text called The Pope Encyclopaedia." Very little in the latter expressed in the former as you would guess. The point is that the title would clearly identify the bias and the sources of the article. And my experience is that virtually nothing can be said about the Bishop of Rome that is not biased.--[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 00:35, 6 May 2007 (CDT) +17 hours
| | Also be aware, I'm planning to do the same thing for the list of popes at [[Papacy/Timelines]]. Its contents will move to [[Pope/Timelines]] but its history will be left behind at [https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Papacy/Timelines Papacy/Timelines], and I'll be redirecting to the Pope one.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 12:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC) |
| ::we don't need separate articles. The views we want to represent are those of the scholars. Unlike 1920 the scholars are not wildly divergent, I think. (Bakc in those days history was an apologetic tool.) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:52, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Yea, we do need separate articles or it will devolve into edit wars and diatribe. Separate articles allow us to present a perspective identified in the beginning. A series of side issues to discuss what the "scholars" think would then be linked. A system. We have the technology.
| |
| | |
| For example:
| |
| *"The Pope has been the head of the Roman Catholic Church for over 1000 years. The Eastern orthodox churches rejected his claims to primacy and broke away. "
| |
| | |
| :1. Well yes, over a 1000 years and quite a bit more than that so why not give reasonable dates indicating when the Bishop of Rome became established? -- before 327 A.D in fact.
| |
| :2. The Eastern Orthodox broke away? Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Constantinople broke away from Rome? Primacy was articulated at various times but made official well after the schism. The Ecumenical Councils do in fact record the Pope' position as first amongst equals and the ecclesiastical authority lay with the Ecumenical Patriarch in the then capitol of the Roman Empire in Constantinople. So, the capital of the empire is in contention, tradition is still with the then existent Roman Empire (in taters it must be said but still breathing) and the Four Patriarchs leave the one? Not really. That is like saying the EU broke away from France. The Church of Rome stepped out.
| |
| | |
| Scholars abound in both camps, people of great erudition and conviction, really very articulate as well--and they disagree on very profound issues. They have been writing for quite some time.
| |
| | |
| And we're off. --[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 00:24, 9 May 2007 (CDT) +17 hours (EPT)
| |
| ::I think we can cover all the issues and controversies fairly here. (Speaking as a former religion major from Notre Dame, class of 1962...which was much like the class of 1862, [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 04:46, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::Not at all sure why anyone would want to begin by insisting there are limited possiblities. It is an electronic encyclopedia and in essence we are developing an entire new genre. There will eventually be a lot of articles and differing perspectives on an issue like this is inevitable. We'll need to deal with those issues as they come forth. --[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 00:00, 10 May 2007 (CDT) +17 hours (EPT)
| |
| | |
| I do not agree that there is a need to put the word "papacy" first. However, I'll wait for further discussion rather than just move the article. However, the capitalization of the initial "h" is clearly incorrect under the conventions that seem to be prescribed here, and I've move it accordingly and fixed the redirect page from [[history of the Papacy]]. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 22:02, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| '''My 2 cents:''' As someone who's presently trying to fill the gaps in this article, I would greatly prefer if this article had the title 'History of the Papacy'. [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 20:03, 11 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::History workgroup policy is to avoid "history of XYZ" titles. historians, history journals and publishers in last decade + have strongly avoided that usage. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:01, 11 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| === Article move ===
| |
| Since we don't have an article at [[papacy]], I'm going to schedule that we move this one to papacy on '''Friday, 26 September, 2008'''. The current name makes no sense. If we move it to papacy, then when the history section gets too long, we spin it back out to another page. Any objections? –[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] 05:49, 19 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| :Upon reflection, I think I'm fine with that. The current state of the papacy is pretty closely connected with its history, so a discussion of the history has to be included in the main article. Thanks, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 08:15, 19 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Great Schism ==
| |
| | |
| Some discussion here will be needed of the Great Schism -- despite the old Catholic notion of an unbroken line from the See of Peter, there is at least one (very interesting) speedbump along this road! [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 22:43, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| : Where's the speedbump? Those on the other side of the Schism do not dispute the unbroken line from Peter. It's Protestants who do that. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 18:51, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :: I think Russell must have been referring to the Great Western Schism, not the Great Eastern Schism. Both are often called simply the Great Schism. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 11:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Lead sencence ==
| |
| | |
| I just removed the lead sentence:
| |
| | |
| :"The '''history of the papacy''' is a major factor in history, especially the Middle Ages."
| |
| | |
| Not wanting to sound like your high school grammar teacher, but it is incorrect. The ''papacy'' may be a major factor in history, but the ''history'' of the papacy certainly was not.
| |
| | |
| Is it necessary to have every article start with "The (insert name of article here) is . . . "?
| |
| | |
| [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 11:35, 14 January 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| ==Scope of the article==
| |
| | |
| As the (new) opening paragraph states, it can at times be difficult to separate the ''history of the Papacy'' from the ''history of the Church'' generally. As I work on the article, I will take as my guideline to discuss the development of (or unfolding of) the position of the papacy within the Church and thus attempt to consider only those aspects of Church (and Papal) history which most directly and essentially affected this development.
| |
| | |
| [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 20:41, 14 January 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Timeline of Popes ==
| |
| | |
| Hey all, I started working on a timeline of the popes and antipopes this morning. Before I typed up the list of all 262, I wanted to make a quick check if there is anything else other folks thought should be in the Timeline. I have included the information I find useful; for instance, I am always curious to compare the life and regnal dates and so have included both. I have not, though, included baptismal names; upon reflection, though, that would be worth including in the table so that the curious reader can tell at a glance which one is the Borgia pope.
| |
| | |
| As a side note, I think the general name of the articles on individual popes should be [[Pope NAME N]], and that is what I am linking to in the table.
| |
| | |
| I could use some help making the table look more visually appealing, if anyone wants to step in. It would also be helpful if anyone knows of a quick place to look up the life dates of all of these popes. Looking them up individually will get old very quickly, I'm sure. Thanks, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 10:48, 12 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| : I could also use suggestions (if anyone has them) about properly glossing the reigns of the very early popes. Just dropping names (and dates, when applicable) in the list might mislead the inexperienced. Thanks again, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 10:53, 12 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| **Good work plan. Suggestion: the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) list all the popes in alphabetical order, with good articles on each, ass [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/p.htm typical index page--search under "pope"] [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:38, 12 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :: I have made some modifications to the papal timeline, which anyone who wants can check out. The main thing is that I split the dates into 'Birth date-Date of Ascension-Death date. I am making my way through the list, and hope to get it finished tonight. As I've been working on it, though, I've had a couple of thoughts as to how it might be made even more useful.
| |
| | |
| :: It would be nice to present some of the information (who are the antipopes, which popes have been canonized) visually, and along the same lines as the information about baptismal names. I haven't gone ahead and done this because I think it will probably be somewhat tricky to find two colors which go well together, and with the silver of the baptismal name field (I am also waiting somewhat on the impending reskinning). Feel free to chime in with any comments. [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 18:24, 16 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Meaning? ==
| |
| | |
| What is the meaning of the statement that the Pope has been head of the RCC for over 1600 years? Assuming over 1600 means between 1600 & 1700, this appears to have only 2 logically possible meanings:
| |
| | |
| #the RCC came into existence in the 4th century
| |
| #it existed before that but the Pope became its head then
| |
| | |
| Neither proposition seems to have any historical foundation.
| |
| | |
| Alternatively, it might mean that the Pope was certainly head then but nobody knows about before then. This doesn't seem to make much sense either. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 10:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :The second of your two claims is pretty much accurate, I believe (and anyway, the Pope only gained "real" power slowly). The primacy of the Bishop of Rome was only something that developed over time. At the end of the fourth century, for example, Ambrose seems to have significantly more real power than the his pope contemporaries.
| |
| | |
| :The implicit point you are making is probably accurate, though. This isn't common knowledge to people on the street, so we should probably 1) spell out precisely what we mean and 2) come up with good references so people don't think that we're a bunch of wild-eyed rebels. At the very least, this may give me an opportunity to check out the new Cambridge History of Christianity. [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 13:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::I always seem to start writing comments on Citizendium when I'm running to class or on my way to an appointment-- and that's not the best way to make nuanced statements. In my earlier comment, I wasn't trying to dispute that the Bishop of Rome had some power or that he was wealthy or first in honor among the patriarchs.
| |
| | |
| ::My point is mainly that there's a pervasive myth that the Bishop of Rome had supreme power over everyone in the Latin West for the whole Middle Ages, which is not true at all. I think we want our article on the Papacy to explicitly and precisely debunk this notion, and I think it's important that we do it in the Introduction. Thanks, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 19:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::I think it's correct to say that the Popes claimed supreme power over the whole church from the 3rd century, but that this claim was & is contested. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 10:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Scriptural quotations ==
| |
| | |
| The translation quoted should always be identified in the footnote, as a matter of policy. It's also a legal requirement if the translation is in copyright. (Note that the Authorized Version is copyright in the UK.) [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 15:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Subpages ==
| |
| | |
| The list of Popes is given under "Timelines", but lists of British monarchs & US presidents are under "Catalogs". [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 11:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Rename suggested]]
| |
