Talk:Pope

From Citizendium
Revision as of 14:38, 12 February 2008 by imported>Richard Jensen (Cath enyc)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is a stub and thus not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Timelines [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  Head of the Roman Catholic Church. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories:  Religion and History [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  British English

Article name and neutrality issues

I suggest we change the name to Papacy, History the goal is to get the major keyword first. Richard Jensen 00:48, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

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.--Thomas Simmons 00:35, 6 May 2007 (CDT) +17 hours

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.) 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. --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, 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. --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. 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'. 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. Richard Jensen 21:01, 11 February 2008 (CST)

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! 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. Michael Hardy 18:51, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

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 . . . "?

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.

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, 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, Brian P. Long 10:53, 12 February 2008 (CST)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Pope&oldid=206419"