Talk:Pope

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)

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)