Talk:List of popes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of popes is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.

The 'Erae' are highly idiosyncratic. I've never seen them used in English. Having an "Era" identified by "secular" political rulers makes a statement that is historiographically suspect. I am removing these.

There would be a kind of logic to putting in secular ruler-indications in periods in which the popes reported their elections to particular rulers for approval/notification (and that in itself is a very controversial issue - no eastern emperor ever 'refused' a papal election, so 'approval' isn't exactly it), but to even mention the 'Savoyards'! Better to call that 'the prisoner of the Vatican phase' or some such. Better yet to leave this a simple, chronlogical, unmodified list. MichaelTinkler

Since the papacy is not a simple, chronological list (see Pope Benedict IX as an example) why not put some kind of dividers in? The have been trends in the papacy and secular influences have been extemely strong for much of the time. Also a broken up list is easier to view and comprehend. If you really cannot stand the erae list, the one that inspired the break up of the list is on the Pope page.

I agree that it is easier to read - but the divisions have to be meaningful. This list, which seemed to concentrate on what 'secular' power controlled much or most of Italy in a given period is meaningless in the case of an institution which was often (if not always) broader in scope than central Italy. I could understand centuries or 500 year blocks, but this list was not useful. Mentioning the Heruli and not the Habsburgs? Hmph. MichaelTinkler

I believ the list of Antipopes should be mereged with thsi one but Antipopes would be in italics? -fonzy

I don't think they belong here. They have an article of their own and that's where they should stay. The list of popes has a somehat "official" label as it corresponds to the list the Holy See provides. But there is no official list of antipopes. There are enough links pointing between the popes and the antipopes to keep the connection. -- JeLuF

[edit] List of future popes

In due deference to the work involved in counting and formatting it, I've place the "List of future popes" here, but removed it from the article. The next pope (whenever there is one) could chould the name Gloria for all we know. We shouldn't try to be augurs. -- Someone else 03:41, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Next Pope could choose one of these names

2: Pope Peter II (extremely unlikely), Pope Marcus II
3: Pope John Paul III, Pope Marcellus III
4: Pope Callixtus IV, Pope Julius IV, Pope Victor IV
5: Pope Eugene V
6: Pope Celestine VI, Pope Martin VI, Pope Nicholas VI, Pope Sixtus VI
7: Pope Paul VII, Pope Adrian VII
9: Pope Urban IX, Pope Alexander IX
10: Pope Boniface X, Pope Stephen X (official lists don't recognize Stephen, once called Stephen II, and the following Stephens are numbered from Stephen II to Stephen IX)
13: Pope Pius XIII
14: Pope Leo XIV, Pope Innocent XIV
15: Pope Clement XV
17: Pope Benedict XVII, Pope Gregory XVII
24: Pope John XXIV

and others less likely. You can read this very complete article in French about the subject: [1].

Try 16: Pope Benedict XVI. GoodDay 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] much more useful before overelaboration.

I think this was a much more useful list before so much "stuff" was added to it. It's far too cluttered now with trivia that could be placed in the individual articles (e.g. exact dates of accession). As an example of a previous more useful version: [2]. - Nunh-huh 04:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Surely a list of incumbents should include precise dates as far as they are known. Otherwise you may just as well have a straight list of names and forget the dates. Then you may as well dispense with the names as well.

It is also worth reminding a reader that the names by which the reader of the English Wikipedia might refer to a subject may not be the name by which they are known in the context in which they exist (or existed); for instance before the development of the English language there was no such word as Pope, in that context. And the words Simon/Peter certainly did not exist at the time the individual was around - yet many people probably think that that was the actual name of the individual at the time.

The problem with including facts (stuff or trivia is a subjective distinction) in the biographical details is that it is less easy to compare details than it is in a list.

I agree there should perhaps be two levels of lists for those interested in whatever either list has to convey, however when that is tried then usually both get swiftly listed in Votes for Deletion by an over-zealous Wikipedian.

--JohnArmagh 06:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Years are sufficiently precise for papal reigns. The "Pope Database" might usefully include a month and day for election, and a month and day for coronation, months, days, years, of various ordinations, date of election (if any) to Cardinal, etc., but a "List of Popes" profits from none of them. Alternative names can be given in the pope's article. As the article currently is, it has no utility (even the TOC has been broken). The once instructional notes on numberings have become unfocussed, and less informative, and two mentions of a mythical Pope Joan is at least one too many. - Nunh-huh 07:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nope - I have thought about this for a couple of days and I still disagree, mainly about the dates issue. I am resolute in the opinion that any worthy list of incumbents to an office should at least have the actual specific dates of the perceived start and end of the tenure where this detail is known. I would not consider other dates (ie ordination etc.) to be relevant in this list, nor necessarily the date of birth (which is included in some lists) so you will not find such detail included in the lists I edit/create.

--JohnArmagh 17:11, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention

Why have SOME of the Pope articles been moved? Pope Felix I for example, but not Pope Alexander I. Rick K 19:45, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

SargeBaldy thought the pope articles should have titles similar to other monarchs...it is being discussed on the Naming conventions page, but I don't think it was agreed that this should be done. Adam Bishop 19:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whichever way this goes the solution should be a consistent one - not half-and-half. Having said that the title 'Pope John II' is immediately distinguishable from any other 'John II'. As other John IIs are called John II of France and John II of Portugal and John II of Aragon, to call Pope John II simply 'John II' would imply that the pope was the definitive John II - which is nonsensical in this sense. The alternatives would be to change all the popes to '.... of Rome' or '.... of the Vatican' or '.... of the Papal State' - none of which could be acceptable - or alternatively '...., Pope' in which case why go through the effort to change it at all? --JohnArmagh 05:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see that a Pope's Regnal Name has something to do with Regnal Year. Can anyone explain this? Does a pope decide if he wants to be Leo XVI, Innocente IV, or John Paul III, or is there some other order or process involved? What will determine the (regnal) name of the next pope?

The Pope chooses his own regnal name on election. --JohnArmagh 18:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should the names on this list be consistent with other papal lists? such as the Ages of Popes which was recently modified for this issue. I don't know the proper convention. NoSeptember 22:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question on numbers of saints canonized

The table says that J.P. II "Canonized more saints than all predecessors."

For clarity, that should be either "Canonized more saints than any predecessor", or "Canonized more saints than all predecessors combined", whichever is the case. (Honestly, I don't know, so the phrasing confused me.)

I beleive he has "canonised more saints than all his predecessors combined", but I'm not 100% certain. Thryduulf 01:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's a little confusion because records of the early popes are incomplete, but that's the general conclusion. Arwel 01:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JPII has canonised more saints than any of his predecessors combined - however canonisations by the pope started only in the 10th century with Ulrich of Augsburg. Str1977 20:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Additions?

Recent additions to the list? Andrew and Peter II? any explanations?

Simple vandalism - why didn't you remove them? I would have thought that mention of a reign ending in the 2020s was a bit of a giveaway.... or are you just trolling? -- Arwel 21:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not really familar with the whole pope stuff or the Christian religion. Thats why I came to this site to learn more and wasn't really sure if that was part of the thing so thats why I came to the discussions for an explanation. Thanks for the clearing that up! :)

[edit] German Popes

Would someone give the correct link the German Popes area?

The statement "first pope from a country where the Roman Catholic religion is not predominant", describing Benedict XVI, obviously neglects the early Popes, back when Christians were scarce everywhere.

in germany more people are catholics then protestants. Catholizism is the first konfession in germany. (but really the count of catholics is next to the count of protestants)

[edit] External links

I'm not sure if this is the right place to suggest it, and it would be a labour of love, but perhaps it would be a good idea for the page of each pope to contain a link to the relevant article in the Catholic Encyclopedia ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ ). It may be useful to have a template ({{pope}} has gone, but what about {{catholic encyclopedia}} for example) - compare {{imdb}} or {{cricinfo}} for examples. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I support this point of view that is a simple vandalism: not funny at all, spoilling proficency of wikipedia. It should be removed immediately. YaBasta

[edit] Total Number of Popes

I came to this excellent page to find TOTAL NUMBER OF POPES since Peter until now but cannot find it. Could someone please put it somewhere on this page? I know it cannot be exact but I was just interested if there were 50, 100 or 1000 Popes in total and I am unable to find this information on WikiPedia (which is ironic, given the fact that this page actually lists all of them, but they are not numbered). Fuxoft 10:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The info box immediately below the picture on the Pope John Paul II article says he was the 264th Pope, meaning that there were 263 before him. I think that number includes St Peter, but I'm not 100% sure on that. Thryduulf 10:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've actually just deleted that line from the box as per discussion recently taken place at JPII Talk. If you count the number of Pope in the List of Popes page, you'll find that the answer you get is different. The reason is some count Stephen, who died 3 days after election, as Pope Stephen II. So, in another word as the text of JPII article says, "JPII was the 264th Pope according to the Vatican (265th according to sources that count Pope Stephen II)". And yes, that includes counting Saint Peter. -- KTC 15:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stephen II ought to be counted - the Vatican counts other popes who were not consecrated. How are all the popes in the 1040s counted, though? What with Benedict IX resigning and coming back twice, and several rival popes at the same time, some of whom might be antipopes? john k 15:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is I agree with you on that Stephen II should be counted. One of the reason is Pope assumes power on acceptance of election and being a Bishop not on consecration. However, I have no idea how the Pope in 1040s or whenever is counted. -- KTC 15:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My point was: If someone comes to Wikipedia looking for "total number of popes" (as I did), he probably comes to this page ("List of popes") and it will probably not occur to him that he needs to click on the last pope in the list to find this number. Even if it was there. Fuxoft 18:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pope vs. Bishop of Rome

Should the early Popes really be described as Popes? Before Siricius, they were simply "Bishop of Rome," no? john k 15:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] German popes II

Benedict XVI is not the first German pope since the 11th century but since the 16th century. While Pope Adrian VI is certainly the first (and, so far, only) Dutch pope but also the last German pope because the Netherlands at that time were German provinces. For reference please read History of the Netherlands. This makes Benedict XVI the 8th German pope. --Maxl 19:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The text bit on Benedict XVI was returned to the old (and defínitely wrong) attitude that was ignorant of the fact that Adrian VI was a German pope because the Netherlands at the time were German provinces. Obviously, whoever changed the text never read the article I recommended above. --Maxl 23:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed a tricky business. It will have to be settled, though. Right now, the note on Adrian IV's entry is contradicting. It states that Adrian was the first Dutch pope and the last German pope (until Benedict XVI). I don't see how he can be both. Either he is Dutch or German. The fact that the Netherlands was under Germanic domination at the time of his papacy would not be sufficient, in my opinion, to "turn him into a German". Was he ethinically (and linguistically, culturally, etc.) Dutch or German? Because of the domination, it is possible that he was an ethnical German living in Dutch territory at that time (a similar case with Franz Kafka, who lived in Prague but was a German, writing in German even). Here's a modern example: people born in, say, Latvia, are no less Latvian because they might have been born there when the country was still under Soviet rule, unless they are part of the Russian population that was sent there in order to promote the "Russification" of the then Soviet Republic. Furthermore, I have read numerous sources that point Adrian IV as a Dutch (mostly indirectly, by claiming that Benedict XVI is the first German pope in almost 1000 years and the 7th German in the Throne of Peter). So, unless someone can provide some sort of evidence that Adrian was actually a German who happened to have lived in Dutch territory given the occupation, the note about him being the last German pope should be removed. And if such a source can be provided, then the remark about him being the first Dutch pope will be the one to go. Regards, Redux 18:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adrian VI was certainly Dutch, but the Dutch were considered to be Germans in the 16th century. There was no such country as "the Netherlands" until about 60 years after Adrian's death. Franz Kafka, by the way, was a German writer, but not an "ethnical German" - he was a Jew. Jews in Prague would have spoken German rather than Czech in Kafka's time, but that does not make him a German. john k 19:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jews are a case apart, since they were a people without a territorial basis until the creation of Israel. Indeed I mispoke in the case of Kafka, since I was not clear enough about what I meant about him being "German", meaning that, apart from his jewish background, he was inserted in German culture (which is a particular trend with Jews, who have their own culture, etc. but are also inserted in the cultural context of their surroundings — except for those who now live in Israel). If Adrian was ethnically Dutch, then he was the first and so far only Dutch pope, and not the last German pope. Whether the Netherlands had not yet achieved political autonomy, as I had said in my previous comment, is immaterial to this characterization, especially when we are so far back in time, when countries as we know them today did not exist. For instance, when we say "German" in those times, it does not mean Germany, which only came into existence in the 1870's (in fact, modern states, as political units, are a product of the 17th century mainly, with some precedence as far back as the 14th century — pope Adrian IV precedes all of those). In this particular timeframe, we should stick to ethnic identification (or else we start referring to people according to the actual nationality they held in their time, in which case Adrian would be neither Dutch nor German — in that m.o., most popes wouldn't be "Italian", but rather Venetian, Roman, etc., since Italy also didn't exist until the 1870's). Since the Dutch are not German ethnically speaking, it would appear that he was, indeed, a Dutch pope, and not a German one. He certainly wasn't both. Regards, Redux 02:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the first place, the Dutch are very closely related to the Plattdeutsch speakers of the lower Rhine - the two dialects are much more closely related to each other than the Plattdeutsch are to the Saxon or Bavarian dialects. The Dutch are only a separate nation because they have a separate history - there is nothing which distinctly separates them from their "German" neighbors. In fact, the Dutch themselves were not a single people. Friesland was inhabited by Frisians, related to their "German" cousins in East Frisia. Groningen, Drenthe and Overyssel were inhabited by Lower Saxons, related to their neighbors to the east, in Lower Saxony. Holland, Zealand, Utrecht, and northern Brabant spoke "Dutch," related to the language of their neighbors in what is now northern Belgium, as well as to dialects on the lower Rhine in Germany. They were all Germanic-speaking peoples, but not more closely related to each other than each is to various peoples who live in Germany and are now considered "German." The idea that the Dutch are not "ethnically German" is ridiculous. What "ethnically German" means is another question, but a Dutchman in the 15th/16th centuries could easily be considered both German and Dutch, since these identities were not at this point at all cleear. As to the non-existence of "Italy" and "Germany" before the 19th century, that is silly. Although Italy was not an economic unity, it is not true that Italy was not a well-defined geographical entity. Only a few borderlands - Savoy, Nice, the Trentino - would be uncertain. A pope from Venice was surely "Italian," as was a Pope from Rome, a pope from Florence, a pope from Milan, a pope from Naples, or whatever. With Germany, the issue is more complicated. However, from the 9th/10th centuries there existed a "German Kingdom" or "Kingdom of Germany" which was the easternmost division of the Frankish Kingdom. From 962 the Kings of Germany were also Holy Roman Emperors and Kings of Italy, and from the 11th century they were also King of Burgundy, but Germany remained a technically distinct kingdom throughout, although after the 15th century or so it was the only part of the Empire which actually functioned, so the Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Germany ultimately converged in meaning. At any rate, Holland and Utrecht, as parts of the Duchy of Lower Lorraine, were certainly part of the Kingdom of Germany from the time of its establishment, essentially, until 1579/1648.

In brief - to say that the Dutch in the Middle Ages were not German is anachronistic. To say that they were German, without qualification, would also be problematic. I think it is perfectly proper to say that Adrian VI was both Dutch and German - Dutch was, at the time, seen as a subset of German, and the Low Countries, as part of the Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Germany, were seen as at least in some sense "part of Germany," although, as I've noted elsewhere, this is somewhat complicated by the fact that the Low Countries were, by the mid-15th century, fully under the political orbit of the French Burgundian dynasty. Which is why I don't think we should try to say that he was one or the other, but just note both interpretations. john k 03:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But saying that he's "the first Dutch and the last German" sounds very contradicting. I see your point about the Dutch and the German being related and, in those days, even joined politically, but the Dutch, as you said yourself, had an independent enough history and cultural identification that they eventually formed their own, independent country. Being that none of the national political entities that existed then have survived to our days, the best way to identify the pope's origin would be to ask: were he born today, would he be Dutch or German? Unless he had been a German born in a Dutch area, which you have already said not to be the case. It is a similarity with the Italians: we are able to call "Italian" people who lived way before Italy came to be a political unit because of the clear identification of the people from the peninsula with a common Italian background, even though they were citizens of their city-states or smaller kingdoms of the time. So, the Netherlands was not even close to becoming an independent unit then, and the Dutch were/are part of the Germanic more general branch, but there certainly was some sort of common identification even in those days, one that later would lead to an independent Netherlands. I believe that's [likely] the assessment made by those who consider the last German pope to have reigned in 1055: even though Adrian was a citizen of a Germanic Empire, he was, in fact, Dutch, considering his ethnicity, place of birth, cultural background, etc. But I do agree that we should make some sort of note about this "controversy" about the nationality of this pope. When you think about it, this is not uncommon when you go back enough in time that the political system was something entirely different from what we understand to be normal. In order to make an identification that makes sense in light of our reality, we must make the sort of connection I've mentioned, or else we end up with stuff like saying someone was Dutch, German and who-knows-what-else at the same time. That is not the same as saying that someone was a Dutch who, given the times, lived under a Germanic Kingdom and was, for that reason, taken as a "German" at the time, which seems to be the case with this pope. Regards, Redux 13:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalizers

I noticed that this article has been vandalized several times by people who deemed it funny to give the new pope "fancy" names and "fancy" attributes. This is not acceptable in any encyclopedia and not even in one that can be edited by anyone. Maybe it would make sense to close the article for a few days. --Maxl 21:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- Good idea. GeeZee 22:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Place of Birth

The From 1250 table has an extra column not contained by the other tables. I would prefer the tables be identical in the numbers of columns, and since in the few cases where place of birth would be significant on a list of popes, it could be mentioned in the Notes column each table has, I suggest that it be removed from that one table. 165.247.178.112 -- 22:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would add the column to the remaining years. It's also part of Template:Infobox pope. -- User:Docu

That does not make sense as a reason. Are you also going to add the birthdate as yet another column? For an individual pope, that information makes sense to include, but the table is already a bit stuffed width-wise as it is. Few if any people who come to this list would be interested in that info for all of the popes? Similar info or birth and death dates is included in the infoboxes for U.S. Presidents and British P.M's, but are not included in their lists. 165.247.186.184 02:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As there is the place of birth in some of those lists, I suppose you are saying it does make sense? Anyways, I feel it's preferable to use the place of birth than to assign some anachronistic nationality. -- User:Docu

I can't believe that since first made this comment, this column has been added to more sections. Folks, this article is already overlong at 73KB. Getting rid of this column will trim about 5 KB, fully fleshing it out will add about another 5 KB. If there absolutely must be a list of Papal birth places it ought to to broken out into a seperate article, not crammed into this overlong mostrosity of a Wiki page. The main reason that I didn't trim the column a month ago was that I wanted to make certain that the info was included in each individual pope's article first.

IMHO, it's more informative now that it's available in all sections. -- User:Docu

[edit] Please, don't worry about who was first from what country

In any case of doubt, let's leave it empty and let reader draw his own conclusions. Samohyl Jan 07:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pope vs. Saint

I'm no papal scholar, so please correct me where I'm wrong. I'm just wondering why the first three popes are listed as saints ("Saint Peter," etc.). I know they are saints, but so are plenty of later popes. If they weren't popes, then they probably shouldn't be here. If they were named popes posthumously or whatever it is if they are popes, I think that should be the name, this is after all a list of popes. In any case, whatever the distinction is should be noted (with an asterisk or something). I hope I'm making sense.

I'm also wondering: is John Paul II really a "The Great" as the article says?--Dmcdevit 04:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just qualified that as 'Styled "The Great" by some admirers'. -- Arwel 13:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me the early bishops of Rome should be described as bishops of Rome, and not as popes, which is anachronistic. john k 05:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a list of Popes of the Roman Catholic Church and so it list those that the Roman Catholic Church consider pope in its history. We're not here to decide whether we really think / count the eariler one as pope or not. -- KTC 13:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to list the earlier ones here. But they shouldn't be at articles like Pope Soter, since they weren't called Pope. The Church considers all bishops of Rome to be in the line of popes, but that doesn't mean that they are called popes. john k 22:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>Naming Issues: A pope's name becomes "Pope St. XXX" "Pope XXX the Great" or "Pope XXX the Blessed" or what have you after he is given that honor by the Catholic church. So, to call Peter simply Pope Peter is not accurate - his papal name is St. Peter. John Paul II is not "the Great". All of the "St.s" and "Blesseds" and "Greats" should be added. Justin (koavf) 13:44, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Something to consider

===>There are other popes For instance, the patriarch of the Coptic church is Pope Shenouda III. This article should be renamed "List of popes of the Catholic church" or, if you want to be slightly more precise and less accurate "List of popes of the Roman Catholic church". Justin (koavf) 01:25, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

The other option is to section this page out into Roman Catholic, Coptic, Eastern Orthodox, etc. popes, with all listed here under their own heading. --Dmcdevit 01:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fathers of the orthodox churches are individually called "pope" but collectively it is generally accepted that they are refered to as "patriarchs" (both terms have the same 'paternal' etymological route and the Bishop of Rome was originally one of the patriarchs until the schizm caused at least partly because he had himself up as the Pope). Whilst the roles of the other patriarchs should not be diminished I feel it would detract from each individual patriarchal position to have all of them on one [sectioned] page entitled Popes in the same way as the Archbishop of Armagh (for instance) would be if the one page had both the Roman Catholic and Church of Ireland incumbents listed. There is no harm in a work of reference to cross-reference terms but the prevailing generally accepted terminology should be reflected. --JohnArmagh 08:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

An entry "List of Popes" would be misleading as it is the Roman Pope that is commonly known as Pope. Also consider the distinction between title and office I posted further down. The only possible renaming would be "List of the Popes of Rome" or "...Roman Popes". Str1977 20:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pope John Paul the One-th?

It says next to his entry that JP I actually called himself 'the first', implying that someone else would have to be second. That seems awfully vainglorious for someone who didn't even want to be Pope. -Litefantastic 11:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't imply that someone else have to take up the same name afterwards. It's probably more of a case of looking at history and see that chances are, there will be more than one with the same name. It's perhaps more vainglorious if one take up a name and think I'm going to be special and be the only one ever to take up such a name. -- KTC 13:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well that's it, you see. He had no guarantee he would be followed. And does anyone have any proof this is true? I'm not saying it's not, it's just that proof would be nice. -Litefantastic 12:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

As I was the one who sourced this detail it is somewhat incumbent on me to state references (which was an omission on my part in the first place). As soon as I recall the source I will state it. --JohnArmagh 08:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

- He did claim the name Ioannes Paulus Primus, apparently, he wanted to state that he was "the first" since it was the first time a double name was chosen and also, remember that the previous two popes were called John (23rd) and Paul (6th), so i guess he wanted to clearly show that he was neither a "John" nor a "Paul", but that he had rather chosen a compeltly new papal name.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 12:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where are my modifications?

I made recently some modifications of the last part of this article. But they are not visible when I open this page, as if I'd never done them. I thought at first someone had reverted them, but no: If I look in "history", my modifications are still there. Simply they are not dispalayed when I click on "article". Does someone have an explaination? (and sorry for my bad English) 82.121.139.102 11:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult to say why when we don't know which edits you're referring to. Looking at the article's history, it seems you either never actually editted it, or you did it under a different IP (e.g. you've got dynamic IP). Why don't you point out which edits you're referring to? Or even better, register an account so things like this is a lot more easily trackable. -- KTC 11:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. My IP was 82.121.133.209 when I made the modifications. I have created an account on French wikipedia, but not on the English one (I rarely interfere in English wikipedia because of my poor English level). Since I posted this message, all is normal again. My modifications are displayed now. I don't know why. :o) 82.121.139.102 13:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anachronistic use of "Pope"

Why did somebody add back in "Pope" to the titles of the early bishops of Rome when I specifically removed them because those people weren't actually called Popes? Very irritating. I'm tempted to revert back to my version of several weeks ago, but presumably numerous changes have been made since then...sigh... john k 02:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Though I haven't edited this article, there's more to it that what you say. If they're not popes, then they don't belong here. If they weren't popes then, but were later given the title, then they are popes (perhaps with just a note as to the difference). Otherwise maybe they belong on List of bishops of Rome. Where am I wrong?--Dmcdevit 00:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- This isn't an easy one - it depends on what the column is supposed to show: if it is intended as the anglicized name & title of the individual at the time of their incumbency then the word Pope should be excluded. If, however the column is intended as the anglicized name and title position which the individual occupied as it relates to the current incumbents then the word should be included. Personally I prefer john k's interpretation. --JohnArmagh 07:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  - The only thing I'm having trouble with is that if we are going by their title in their time, they wouldn't be popes at all, and shouldn't be here. But since that is silly, the only sensible alternative seems to be to call them pope (but in any case, there's no problem in noting that they weren't in their time). --Dmcdevit 08:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    - Ah, but as the incumbents who were styled Pope are clearly successors to their predecessors who were not, and performed the same function regardless of title, that enforces the notion of a single list. Similarly (and I know that there has been discussion on this) I would be inclined to include in the list those who are regarded as Antipopes, as these were elected in opposition to the official Pope and were regarded by their proponents as having the same authority (similar to the list of Roman Emperors which includes claimants). However, concensus has been against this and I have not intervened in this respect. --JohnArmagh 19:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Please note that title and office are not the same things.

The title "Pope" is anachronistic in the early times, but IMHO this list covers those who have held the office of "Pope" (a.k.a. bishop of Rome). Hence someone can be lacking the title "Pope" but still be "Pope". One can even bear the title "Pope" but not be "Pope" in the sense of this article (e.g. the Coptic pope).

However, I think it's overly burdensome and not really feasibly to draw a line when the title "Pope" first appears. It just pops up somewhere down the line as an address of various bishops including the bishop of Rome (and successor to St. Peter) and later it was restricted to the bishop of Rome, though not all accepted this restriction, e.g. the Copts. Str1977 20:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It is beyond dispute that the first pope to actually use the term in an official capacity was Siricius. I continue to support john k in his re-removal (latterly reversed) of the word "Pope" in the Common Name column for all entries prior to Siricius. --JohnArmagh 05:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So, any consensus here? If we know that it is Siricius that was the first to be called Pope, then one of Str's concerns seems to be moot. Would there be any problem with removing Pope from the list for Pre-Siricius popes? john k 06:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The other Popes

Can lists of the other religious persons known as Popes be included/cross referred to here (Coptic Popes etc).

(Jackiespeel 15 September 2005)

(Is it time to create an archive page for this talk page yet?)

[edit] Papal history

I have created the page History of the Papacy - ie covering the papacy as an institution rather than merely entries for individual popes.

Can people more knowledgeable than I develop the topic.

(NB - there is an automatic flag message that this talk page is too long.)

Jackiespeel 17:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Papal connections

I created the page Papal curiosities (which did not develop) - can I now suggest a page listing connections between popes - families and other relations (the Borgias and others) and my original paralles between the 1903 and 2005 elections. Jackiespeel 22:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be a page listing connections between Popes - families etc, which pope was made a cardinal by which predecessor etc. Can someone come up with a better title and more detail? Alternatively the connections could be put at the bottom of the List of Popes page. Jackiespeel 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I began (by the end) such a page in French here: [3] but I've never finished it. Švitrigaila 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popes Stephen

We've got some issues with the Popes Stephen, I think. The former Pope Stephen II was moved to the deeply awkward Stephen (ephemeral pope), but all the others remain at the higher numbers. My suggestion would be to move Stephen (ephemeral pope) to Pope Stephen (II), which is how he's generally known, and then have later Popes Stephen at Pope Stephen II (III), and so forth. This seems to be the usual standard, and is considerably less confusing. What do people think? john k 01:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As I have already said in Talk:Pope Stephen, I am in favor of renaming Stephen (ephemeral pope) into something else (I am responsible for this awkward name) and strongly against a double numbering for the further popes.

For the first point, we should chage Stephen (ephemeral pope) into Pope-elect Stephen, because it's exactly what he is. He was elected pope, but was not yet pope. A pope elect, then, as there is a US president-elect between November and January every four years.

For the second point, the next popes Stephen are in reality popes Stephen II to pope Stephen IX. The last one clearly signed his document Stephanus papa nonus. It's not as if there were two equally good ways of numbering popes Stephen. There is one correct one, and sometime one can found the other one in old documents, or in documents based on not up to date sources. There was a controversy before 1961 when the Holy See considered there were ten popes Stephen, and unclerical sources considered there were only nine. There's no mo more controversy since this date when all sources agreed on nine popes Stephen. So, there is no reason to use such complicated titles as Pope Stephen II (III), which add nothing for the reader than can be said in the article itself and which is complicated to write and find.

Švitrigaila 12:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's done now, I've renamed it into Pope-elect Stephen. Švitrigaila 16:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This quote is in the introduction: "Pope-elect Stephen was considered legitimate under the name Stephen II until the 1961 edition and erased then." That's a very awkward sentence. I think there's a typo in it somewhere that may have been the rsult of a copy-and-paste error or something. But I'm not sure what it's supposed to be. Can somebody correct it? Joe 19:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I must add I regularly beg for the renaming of Pope Stephen III into Pope Stephen II and so on until Pope Stephen X into Pope Stephen IX. I want to keep Pope Stephen X as a simple redirect to Pope Stephen IX and to add this sentence on every "pope Stephen [n]" page :

This pope is sometimes called Stephen [n+1], and pope Stephen [n-1] is sometimes called pope Stephen [n]. See Pope-elect Stephen for further explaining.

Up to now, nothing happened and the worse solution is still on place. On Wikipedia in other languages, the same system as in English prevailed until recently, but now all the Wikipedias one by one are switching to the nine-popes-Stephen-only nomenclature.

Švitrigaila 12:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The double naming is both the most clear and the most used in reference sources to avoid conclusion. Also, what's the deal with the whole business? Other unconsecrated popes are counted. In terms of numbering, the antipope Alexander V counts. There is no Pope John XX. The numbering of popes is not dependent on whether or not someone was actually pope. 130.91.46.11 18:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [this post by me, User:John Kenney, not logged in)

It's false to say the double naming is the most used. Here are the references I have, and the naming without parenthesis is clearly the most used (and none of them uses the numbering currently used in Wikipedia). The double naming is neither the most clear : maybe I have a very bizarre brain, but I find unclear to add two numbers for each pope! You say other unconsecrated popes are counted, it's true for only one : Pope Adrian V, and it's just because the rules of election changed during the centuries. If tomorrow the rules of the US presidential election are changed to give the job to the candidate who have won the majority of total votes, we won't consider retroactivly that Al Gore was president of the United States. You say there is no pope John XX, so why not renaming Pope John XXI into Pope John XXI (XX)? Before 1958, Antipope Alexander V and Antipope John XXIII where both already considered antipopes, but because Pope Alexander VI chose to be "VI" and not "V", most list called them "Pope Alexander V" and "Pope John XXIII". And then, Pope John XXIII was elected... What will hapend if the next pope choses the name Stephen X ? There is no need to use a double denomination for the pages's title. If we choose to call a page Pope Stephen III (IV), then we would have to rename Marseille into Marseille (Marseilles) because the problem is the same : a currently used name with an obsolete one. Nobody has yet said Marseille (Marseilles) is the most clear title. Wikipedia uses links. Let's use them! Švitrigaila 21:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Somewhat erroneously"!

"When Simon de Brion became pope in 1281, he chose to be called Martin. At that time, Marinus I and Marinus II were mistakenly considered to be Martin II and Martin III respectively, and so, somewhat erroneously, Simon de Brion became Pope Martin IV." Craven! We are made vividly aware to what extent Wikipedia may not state that the Papacy is ever in error, on even the simplest level. Even normal rules of capitalization—"the popes of the sixteenth century", "Pope Julius II"— may not be followed: Pope must be capitalized and linked at every Wikipedia appearance. --Wetman 13:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh? This is a wiki, you know. {{sofixit}} -- ALoan (Talk) 14:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalize list - Pope Colbert etc...

To the person who place this name together with Pope St. Linus, unless its a mistake, please don't vandalize the list. I have remove that error anyway. 27 May 2006

[edit] Lists of lists: reworded

I tidied up the wording of the second paragraph of the text. While I recognise that this is a "list" page, it seemed to me that about 8 occurrences of the word in such a short space was excessive. I have also reworded the information about Stephen II. I don't think I have introduced any change of meaning, but I believe it reads better now.

Removed

There is no official list of popes, but the Annuario Pontificio, published every year by the Vatican, contains a list that is generally considered to be the most authoritative. There have been 265 according to the list of the Annuario Pontificio. A man elected in 752 and died three days after was listed on this list as Stephen II until 1960, but he has been erased since the 1961 edition. Some lists still include him, despite the recent change, making a list of 266 popes, but other choices of the Annuario pontificio are most questionable. The main reason this Stephen is still on those lists is that they are based on the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is in the public domain.

Inserted

There is no official list of popes, but the Annuario Pontificio, published every year by the Vatican, contains a list that is generally considered to be the most authoritative. There have been 265 popes according to the Annuario pontificio. In 752 Stephen II was elected, but he died three days later. Though he was included in the list up until 1960, later editions have omitted him. There are other sources which still include Stephen, thereby making a total of 266 popes. It is probable that this is because they are based on the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which is in the public domain.

--King Hildebrand 10:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this paragraph. My style is awkward because I'm a foreigner, and it's a good thing you have corrected the style, thank you. But you've changed the meaning of one phrase and deleted one information :

You write "In 752 Stephen II was elected". It's untrue. In 752, a man called Stephen was elected, yes, but he was not named "Stephen II". The numbering of popes of the same name began only three centuries later, and this one was then ignored. His successor was numbered Stephen II, not him. This Stephen was added to the list only after the reign of Stephen IX, and erased again in the last century. In the sentence as you write it, it seems you speak about Pope Stephen II, who is not the same person.

The information you've erased is "other choices of the Annuario pontificio are most questionable". There are other questionable choices in this list (Was Antipope Christopher legitimate or not? Which of Pope Leo VIII or Pope Benedict V was legitimate? this question is far more discussed than Stephen's legitimacy, and so on...), so I wrote this sentence to point that if we doubt about the validity of the Anuario pontificio's list about Pope-elect Stephen, then we can doubt about the list's other points. But the total number of popes (265) is based on this list, so it is pointless to say if we add Stephen it'll make 266. If we add Stephen, we have to reconsider the whole list and the whole count, and the number 266 has no justification at all.

Švitrigaila 12:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for having introduced distortions of your intended meaning. I hope you have reworked the text to correct it. I had no intention of changing anything but the style. I cannot claim any special knowledge of the subject - in this I defer entirely to you! --King Hildebrand 15:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zachary

The chart on this page lists Pope Zachary's birth place as Greece, but the article on the Pope lists his birthplace as Calabria. Rmpfu89 16:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter

It's a well known historical fact that Peter never even visited Rome. So why is he listed as the first Pope? Obviously no Catholic would ever accept this simple fact, but it remains fact nonetheless.

So this list is biased. Big thumbs down.

Also, how can some be listed as Popes BEFORE the office existed, shouldn't they be listed as "Bishops of Rome" instead?

Dear anonymous anti-catholic:

a) Please cite the 'well-known' sources which corroborate your assertion.

b) St Peter is considered to have held the office Bishop of Rome. His successors have all held the same position. The title of Pope was at no point a newly-created office.

c) Triceratops is listed as a dinosaur even though it became extinct 65million years before the word dinosaur was invented.

d) I could think of many more arguments, but I really can't be bothered right now --JohnArmagh 15:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear obviously-a-catholic.

a) Why don't you prove it instead? This is an Encycolpedia (and not a Catholic encyclopeida), you should be able to prove your additions. Although I suppose this is what one gets when they allow anyone to contribute.. Inaccurate information.

Volume 21 of my Encyclopedia Americana states that him being in Rome was nearly universally accepted by the second century and more or less confirmed by archaeology. This may refer to this, which is admittedly disputed. The main sources I find on him are theological school articles however, like this one. In any event the kind of proof you are asking for is neither possible nor strictly speaking necessary. Most of the evidence points to his being in Rome and without a time-viewer on hand we have to settle for that. You're not going to get absolute certainty with most figures of antiquity, excepting maybe kings and Caesars.--T. Anthony 15:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

b) Like I said, no proof. You catholics might consider it so, but BELIEF does not equal truth nor evidence.

Text written around his lifetime, a tomb, concensus of the early Christians, and backing of historians is sufficient in this case. What was your counter-evidence?--T. Anthony 15:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

c) Interesting argument... But your point being what? I take it it's totally okay to call, oh lets say King Nebucanezzar, "Premier" Nebucanezzar instead then? (Or are you a hypocrite?)

d) If they are any like your argument about dinosaurs, then please don't..

BTW This isn't about your religion, it's about historical accuracy. No matter what you may believe, the past is the past, and no belief can change a historical fact. If you really want to discuss Catholicism sure, but that wasn't my intention. I could care less about what religion you belong to, I care about facts.

I am not the person you spoke of, but I have a BA in history and am working on my Master's. (If much too slowly) The absolute facts are unlikely to be known, but that he was in Rome seems as or more probable than that he wasn't. What do you have to throw doubt on it?(If you site say Free Inquiry as your only source I'm going to have to tell you that's insufficient)--T. Anthony 15:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my 'belief'. I consider that all 'precursor offices' should be on the same list where there is no de facto change in the nature of the office (or where the nature of the office developed gradually over time) title notwithstanding. This has certainly been my position where the Church of England hierarchy took over from the Catholic one in the list of Bishops which I have created. I don't consider splitting the list at the point of the reformation to be valid as the office itself did not change. Likewise I don't consider the list of Monarchs of the UK should be split at the time the Church of England took over, nor at the point where the word 'England' ceased to exist in the official title of the monarch.

I agree that my faith (or any faith) has nothing to do with the article. However it is commonly held that Peter was de facto the first in the line of Popes, notwithstanding that the office did not exist de jure both by Catholics and by those who are not anti-Catholic. Only those who are anti-Catholic hold dispute the commonly held view. Now one could say that in common parlance Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome, and one could cite arguments either way. It doesn't change things for Julius Caesar's place in history, and nor does this argument do so for Peter.

Nevertheless, any proposal to remove Peter from the list would be against the interests of the Wikipedia. It could be stated in the list that some hold the view that should not be considered Pope, but then this opens a can of worms - where does one start the list (considering that all on the list would in all likelihood have been addressed as papa - which was to become in due course the official title) Do the names removed from the list go on a separate list? What would that list of incumbents be called? ("List of Bishops of Rome" wouldn't be very good - one would have to duplicate the list of Popes right up to the present day)

No - I am not a hypocrite (at least not in this respect). I can't see why you should consider me so. One could call Nebuchadnezzar a premier, but only as a particularly inaccurate label (a rose by any other name etc.) There is an acute difference between Premier, as we recognize the governmental position today, and absolute monarch as he actually was.

In the absence of proof, where there is a widely held dispute, the disputed position should be indicated, but not to the detriment of the nature of the information.

"this is what one gets when they allow anyone to contribute.. Inaccurate information." Clearly you consider that Catholics should not be allowed to contribute to anything which may be considered catholic-related. Maybe you should ban those who wish to contribute on anything they may have an interest in. Heaven forbid - their interest may mean they have a bias! No: I think it is only Catholics with whom you have an axe to grind.

I wish you well in your studies T. Anthony. You have my admiration. --JohnArmagh 20:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you aren't confusing me with the person who said "It's a well known historical fact that Peter never even visited Rome. So why is he listed as the first Pope? Obviously no Catholic would ever accept this simple fact, but it remains fact nonetheless." I don't think you are, but the way it's written is a bit unclear. My position was that Peter probably was in Rome, or that it's a defensible view anyway, and I strongly support Peter being on this list. I should've added that Peter is on the list of Popes in every valid Encyclopedia I know of. Removing him would be a form of POV I think. The argument for removing him was written in a way to act like it's "fact based", but the motivation I doubt was. For example Sundiata Keita is half-mythical, but no one has suggested taking him off the list at the end of Mansa. Trying to discredit Papal lists has more "juice" to it than trying to discredit West African king lists.--T. Anthony 03:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No - I could tell from the text that the comments of two different authors were intertwined. I took you, T. Anthony, to be the one with the reasoned outlook. The other (anonymous) author has their own agenda but fears putting their name to their comments (which in my book equates to a lack of courage of conviction). --JohnArmagh 12:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_popes_9e4b.html"