Talk:Pope

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2024

SBMax (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

See More

Warum befindet sich kein Hinweis dazu, dass diese Person eine 6 Jährige geheiratet hat und die Ehe mit 9 Jahren vollzogen wurde?

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Biased

Quote: This idea is undermined by the Biblical usage of "Cephas", which is the masculine form of "rock" in Aramaic, to describe Peter.[101][102][103] The Encyclopædia Britannica comments that "the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter".[104] End quote

I have issue with this since jesus said upon this PETRA, not petros (peter's name). being the femanin form it would not refer to peter, but the place or the confession.

I think this section needs to be flagged as biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaarith (talk • contribs) 16:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Pope of Rome.

Please add in a reference to 'Pope of Rome' to distinguish the position from that of the Coptic Pope. - (121.98.107.94 (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC))

Change Image of Leo XIV

185.149.208.192 (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Robert Francis Prevost.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Visible Head Redux

A while back we had a big discussion about the term "visible head" and whether to change it. We did settle on "visible head" after some illuminating references to Church teachings.

Just now @Sandstein unintentionally reopened this issue by editing the sentence to remove the word "visible." His argument was that believing the Pope is the "visible head" is a matter of faith, and thus using the term violates NPOV.

I disagree. I'm not a Catholic (not even a believer) but to me it simply makes sense to use Catholic terminology to talk about Catholic things. To do otherwise would be imposing my beliefs on the Catholic reader. And that would violate NPOV.

I've manually reverted Sandstein's edits, though it doesn't seem to have registered as a revert. So I added this note to avoid confusion. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I was not aware of the prior discussion. To begin with, the visible/invisible head thing is a pretty subtle point of theology that maybe does not to be in the very lead sentence of the article. Second, if we describe the Pope as the visible head in our voice, it iimplies that we as Wikipedians assert that there is an invisible head, but that is a matter of faith, not fact. The footnote makes this clear, but the text would need to make this clear as well - and then the issue would be definitely to convoluted to address in the lead sentence. I propose to describe the pope simply as the head in the lead, and then go into the visible/invisible issue further down in the article. Sandstein 05:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Tagging participants in the previous discussion: @Johnbod, @EXANXC, @Graham11, @Pbritti. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we should use "visible head", but in quotes. That is enough for the lead sentence. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why we wouldn't use visible head without scare quotes. It is objectively true that the Pope is the visible head of the Roman Catholic Church, and the use of the term doesn't imply anything about whether or not there is a distinct invisible head.

And the idea that the existence or nonexistence of a distinct invisible head "is a matter of faith, not fact" (as Sandstein suggests) is a notion that, in itself, takes a position on what is fundamentally an epistemic question, and to do so would not be in line with WP:NPOV. Graham (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, no. What is a matter of fact is that the pope is the head of the church. If we label him the "visible" head this evidently implies that there is (as a matter of fact) also an invisible head. Because all humans are visible by nature, we wouldn't ordinarily label them so. We don't describe the president of Italy, for example, as the "visible head of state of Italy". Sandstein 08:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Sandstein: "visible head" implies "invisible head." But I find @Graham's other point compelling: we don't want to take a position on whether or not this particular teaching makes sense. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

While it would not be inaccurate to describe the president of Italy as the "visible head of state of Italy", we do not do so because we don't have countless reliable sources that explicitly reject the idea that the president of Italy can be described as the "head of state of Italy" without qualification. We do, however, have such sources for the Pope. Graham (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pope Leo XIV 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coat of Arms of Leo XIV.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Signature

"Other documents [Francis] signed in accordance with the tradition of using Latin only and including the abbreviated form "PP.", for the Latin Papa ("Pope").[180] Popes who have an ordinal numeral in their name traditionally place the abbreviation "PP." before the ordinal numeral, as in "Leone PP. XIV" (Pope Leo XIV)" --This statement seems to imply that Leo is following tradition, but "Leone" is Italian, not Latin, unless the signature is in the ablative. So is Leo departing from tradition too?31.192.197.247 (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Lengths of papal reign

The Longest Reigning popes section says it lists "papal reigns of those whose reign lengths can be determined from contemporary historical data" but then proceeds to list Saint Peter as the longest reigning pope. While I understand that Peter is widely recognized, at least among Catholics, as the first and longest reigning pope the evidence for it can hardly be called "contemporary historical data". There is hardly anything about his leadership of the Roman church from the first century and not much with clear dates from the second. Fifty to a hundred years later just isn't contemporary. I'd demote his reign to an endnote like anti-pope Benedict or at least reword the intro to make clear his place on the list is based on later not contemporary sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)