Talk:Catholic Church

GA Reassessment

Catholic Church

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Several uncited sections, including almost the entire first section of the History section. History focuses disproportionately on 20th and 21st century. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagree that the history weighting is a significant problem. Might require a minor rebalancing—-I’m not sure why John Paul II has his own section while other popes do not (aside from Francis, but the case for having a section on the current pope is strong)—-but that’s a modest edit, not a reason to delist. The several uncited paragraphs in the History section (which look to be the only significantly uncited section to me) do need fixed, but I note that History of the Catholic Church has a pretty well-cited early history section, so that shouldn’t be a hard fix. Reassessment seems a pretty big overreaction for these problems—-it’s pretty firmly WP:JUSTDOIT territory. El Sandifer (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep on grounds offered. The first part of the History section appears to be a lede-style summary of the subsections afterward (a la WP:LEADCITE), with the relevant citations in the respective subsections. If truly desired, go and move the relevant citations back up, but this is a style that isn't unreasonable. As for focus - the Catholic Church is a topic where multi-volume books have been written on it, there is no one perfect amount to cover on each time period. I will say that random readers are probably more interested in the recent history aspect, so it wouldn't shock me if the 2424 article on the Catholic Church disproportionately focuses on the 24th century. SnowFire (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delist 1) if the unsourced content in the history section is a sourced elsewhere in the article, it is redundant and needs to be removed per GACR#3b 2) obvious recentism in the history section. The Catholic Church has a really long history so the twentieth and twenty first centuries need to be covered in similar amount of detail as other historical epochs, and summary style needs to be used. Note that I did not look at the rest of the article (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep There is no obvious "recentism" in the history section. The 20th century section does not appear disproportionately long compared to the rest of the section. I also see no uncited sections. Note that my comments pertain to this most recent revision. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that Zfish118's comment follows my examination and removal of the offending parts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work in trimming the history section! –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Descriptions of pre-Great Schism Christians

I noticed that Imperial/Great Church Christians before the Great Schism are labeled as "Roman Catholic/Catholic" if they're from Latin-speaking regions, while those in the East are labeled as "Orthodox" if they're from Greek-speaking areas. This seems an anachronism. We have no absolute confident what any of these figures would have affirmed if they would have lived. Has there been a discussion surrounding this? ~2026-43538-14 (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

In these instances, it is fine to distinguish people as Western, Eastern, Syriac, etc. Best practice is (almost always) to follow how highly reliable sources describe them. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2026

Change Founder from Jesus Christ of Nazareth to St Peter the Apostle (de facto) and Jesus Christ of Nazareth DamianoDaC (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. seems to have been discussed on multiple occasions in the past, so inappropriate for edit request Cannolis (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

RFC: Should pre-Great Schism Bishops of Rome be classified as "Roman Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox" or something else in their infoboxes?

How should English Wikipedia label the Bishops of Rome that existed before the East–West Schism?

The terminology is under editorial dispute, and "Orthodox", "Catholic", "Roman Catholic", "Eastern Orthodox", "Chalcedonian", "Imperial", "Great Church", and "Proto-Orthodox Church" are ways that they are currently described.

1. Label them as Roman Catholic/Catholic.
2. Label them as Eastern Orthodox/Orthodox.
3. Label with the commonly used academic terms. (Example: Great Church → Etc.)
4. Leave their infoboxes empty.

This is part one of a two part RFC regarding the early Bishops of Rome. (The other being a RFC on whether they should be labeled in the short description as "head of the church".) SirachJohn (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

It would be helpful if this RFC pointed to examples of this dispute and didn't just describe the background. Has this issue been discussed on noticeboards or talk pages? Usually it's better not to hold an RFC until there has been discussion. Jahaza (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing editorial dispute for years. Take a look at the page history of the pre-1054 Bishops of Rome. I'm a seminary student (who briefly used to edit Wikipedia as an undergraduate). There are numerous editors who believe that the Catholic and Orthodox Church (both East and Oriental) are the One True Church that Jesus established, so there has been a slow-motion edit war between "Roman Catholic/Catholic", "Eastern Orthodox/Orthodox", and the academic labels, and because it's "drive-by edits" the proper terminology has never been addressed.

Augustine of Hippo is described as Roman Catholic/Catholic (he used "Catholic Church" in his writings; EO's official name is "Orthodox Catholic Church"). Several Eastern Church Fathers (pre-schism) are described as "Eastern Orthodox/Orthodox".

My personal opinion is that this is a theological judgement and anachronistic. Both RC's and EO's and even many Protestants claim to be a part of the same communion as these guys. If we label them RC/EO we are essentially claiming that one of these branches is in schism while the other is legitimate. There is obviously no theological, or even secular academic consensus on which was "more right" than the other. SirachJohn (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

So it would have been helpful if you had noted that this is at least partly about your current content dispute on Pope Celestine among other places. It looks like @Anachronist, @JasterOmega, @Servite et contribuere are already involved editors. Jahaza (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Partially, but it's relevant to all pre-1054/1215 Bishops of Rome rather than a specific group of pages. I also see it as bad form to "draw attention" to a specific editor/page. They've all been perfectly cordial with me. Hope that makes sense. :p SirachJohn (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's also kind of problematic to set up this RFC and not notify the involved editors, which will potentially result in a fait accompli when the results get implemented on those articles. They're not necessarily followers of this page. Jahaza (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I was going to reach out to them. SirachJohn (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me? Why did you ping me? This article wasn't even on my watch list, I have never edited it as far as I can tell, and I have never participated on this talk page until now. How, exactly, am I "involved"? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

SirachJohn did note that it is anachronistic. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:46, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I think I see why I was considered "involved". In my contribution history, I reverted SirachJohn's edit to Pope Leo I, which I do have on my watch list for some reason. It may have been an accidental click of the rollback button (it happens) because two minutes later I self-reverted. I note, however, that SirachJohn's edit didn't include any edit summary whatsoever, so in hindsight I should have probably not reverted myself, since it was an unexplained change of something that looked like it needed discussion, and there is no discussion about it on Talk:Pope Leo I. I don't have an opinion on the dispute here, but I do object to SirachJohn making contentious changes without explaining them in an edit summary. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Choice 3 due to longstanding theological, historical, and ecclesiastical controversies that indisputably do not possess consensus. This is a complicated question that cannot be unequivocally answered in the affirmative until 1054 or 1215. I have no strong opinion on which date is superior. SirachJohn (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• The current academic consensus is that the Great Schism isn't described by any date but as a process that occurred over a long period of time. Jahaza (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with that, and I said that here. Best regards. :p SirachJohn (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Unclear Rfc scope – I am unclear on the intended scope of your Rfc. In your Rfc question you say, "How should English Wikipedia label..." rather than, "How should *this article* label...." By this, I understand you to mean that any consensus would apply to wording in all articles in English Wikipedia. If that is the case, this Rfc is on the wrong page, and should be moved to a centralized discussion page, as any result would have an impact far beyond this one article. If your intention is that the Rfc applies to this article only, then you should alter the wording of your question above. If you do, be sure to use proper WP:REDACTION, as !votes have already appeared, and may have to be redone after any redaction. Mathglot (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  The RFC is related to all of the subjects on English Wikipedia.

  I'm uncertain on how to move it. SirachJohn (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  It probably should have been placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism (or possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. However, now that it is here, it may be sufficient to add a brief, neutral feedback request at those wikiproject talk pages or possibly others to elicit additional feedback here. Mathglot (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'll do that now. SirachJohn (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  I noticed your two long comments (4.3 kb) at WT:CATHOLICISM (diff) and the WT:CHRISTIANITY (diff). Thanks for the thought, but for next time, please read about how to add a neutral feedback request first. One sentence of about ten words without further explanation, and without revealing your position on the matter is sufficient (e.g.: ("Your feedback at [[Rfc1]] and [[Rfc2]] would be appreciated. ~~~~"). Mathglot (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  Unclear Rfc question – Your Rfc question talks solely about how to "label" them, without specifying whether you mean in the lead sentence, the lead paragraph, the body, or in the Infobox. The first three options say nothing about this, so I assumed you meant the lead sentence. But then in in option 4, you mention Infoboxes. So, is this Rfc solely about the Infobox? If it is solely about the Infobox, which field are you talking about? Is it the |venerated= field, or another one? Mathglot (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

  This portion of the RFC relates to any direct claim in the voice of Wikipedia itself that they were Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. "Head of the Catholic Church" (as in Linus), "solidifying the faith of the Catholic Church" (as in Damasus I), "Generally regarded as one of the greatest theologians and philosophers in the history of the Catholic Church" (as in early Bishops of Rome or those in affiliation with them -> Augustine of Hippo), would all be the type of language discouraged or forbidden by the conclusion of this RfC.

  Option #3 would describe the popes in the way commonly used in ecumenical statements and secular academics:

  Early Church (33-180) → Great Church (180-313) → Imperial Church (313-451) → Chalecdonian Church (451-1054)

  "He is considered a saint in the Catholic Church" is perfectly permissible and venerated= too. Both are permitted with the RfC question. Catholic theological claims regarding every Bishop of Rome have automatic nobility and thus should be included, if possible, in a balanced way. SirachJohn (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Choice three as it best aligns with WP:NPOV. There are multiple, multiple, churches that claim heritage to the Nicene Church. We might as well classify these Bishops "Lutheran" due to the Lutheranism claiming heritage from the Nicene church. It is worth noting Wikipedia does not, and should not, favour a religious claim over the other. - AProtestantBoy (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose any universalized changes at this time. This RfC makes no effort to provide evidence that there is a compelling reason for this change. There are no sources provided, despite the allusion made by the non-neutral of phrasing of option 3. If reliable sourcing suggests that changes are needed, we'd have noticed that during the myriad FA/GA noms related to the papacy prior to the arrival a few weeks-old accounts now promoting changes with poor logic. This is especially frustrating for me, as the RfC's proposer twisted my answer to another question to make mass changes prior to seeking consensus. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

  The dispute between the Orthodox and Catholic churches is well-known, but it's stated in The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity by Kallistos Ware.

  After 1204 there can be no doubt that Christian east and west were divided into two. Orthodoxy and Rome each believes itself to have been right and its opponent wrong upon the points of doctrine that arose between them; and so Rome and Orthodoxy since the schism have each claimed to be the true Church [before 1054].

  This is a contentious proposition. SirachJohn (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose all. In a biographical article, typically we describe an individual using wording that represents the majority view of reliable sources. If this Rfc were about Clement of Rome or Leo the Great, or Pope Nicholas I, we could have a discussion about how the preponderance of reliable sources refer to each one and use the appropriate wording in each case. WP:DUE WEIGHT is part of WP:Neutral point of view policy, and I have seen no compelling rationale why we should try to establish a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS intended to apply to all articles about Bishops of Rome rather than simply follow existing policy for each one. In addition, the unclear wording of the Rfc question makes it unclear how respondents understand the question, and how a closer should interpret responses; establishing a meaningful consensus may be difficult, especially if it appears to override WP:NPOV. (Iirc, NPOV is the sole pillar that cannot be overridden by consensus.) Finally, the failure to include "Option 5: follow the reliable sources in each case" fatally undermines the Rfc as non-neutral. Therefore I oppose any change. Mathglot (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

  If this Rfc were about Clement of Rome or Leo the Great, or Pope Nicholas I, we could have a discussion about how the preponderance of reliable sources refer to each one and use the appropriate wording in each case Leo the Great, Pope Nicholas I, and every Bishop of Rome between Council of Chalcedon and the East-West Schism all belonged to the same fundamental church. Therefore, not establishing a global consensus on all would be a huge waste of editorial time. The 451-1054 Chalcedonian Church composed a singular ecclesial structure that were in communion with one another (exempting the brief Photian schism and several other incidents that did not last for any substantive amount of time).

  It is therefore fitting to have a consensus on all pre-1054 Bishops of Rome.

  Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources is what the given rule says. It does not say anything about whichever one has a majority or plurality of Christians. Orthodox, Protestant, and other non-Catholic beliefs regarding the Bishops of Rome before 1054 are significant viewpoints. They would argue that these bishops of Rome were either Orthodox (EO/OO) view or that later theological developments in both communions (post-schism) occurred. (Protestants and a majority of secular academics such as Peter Heather.) The argument that editors, including me, have is that the usage of "Catholic" or "Orthodox" either becomes a contentious theological preposition or anachronism when read by lay readers. The venerated= section is perfectly in line with POV. It's fine. SirachJohn (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Kallistos Ware says that the Orthodox Church sees all popes before the East-West Schism as belonging to the Orthodox communion: "After 1204 there can be no doubt that Christian east and west were divided into two. Orthodoxy and Rome each believes itself to have been right and its opponent wrong upon the points of doctrine that arose between them; and so Rome and Orthodoxy since the schism have each claimed to be the true Church [before 1054]." If we go by reliable or theological sources for 451-1054 popes, we'll find at least a notable minority listing them as both Catholics and Orthodox. That is why a local consensus doesn't make much sense. Catholics believe that the same thing is true, but that the Orthodox left them. SirachJohn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see WALLOFTEXT and BLUDGEON. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - leave it up to each article to determine case by case. Along the changing history, what would be supported may change for 800 AD versus 500 AD, so a single rule seems inappropriate. I can see some clarity advantage to avoiding any form of "Roman Catholic" or "Orthodox" since that might be confused with a side of the schism. But either "Great Church" or "blank" might not be what RS use -- if there is even anything in use - so leave it for each article to pick what (if anything) to say. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think any of these are particularly good though I lean towards 4. Infoboxes tend to get overused and overly complicated. 3 is completely bogus. This is not how academic sources treat these bishops. Some of the sources presented approach WP:FRINGE. Jahaza (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

RFC: How should pre-Great Schism Bishops of Rome be labeled in their short descriptions?

There is an editorial conflict on how the Bishops of Rome that existed before the East–West Schism should be described in their short descriptions. Both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox claim ecclesiastical continuity with the Great Church that existed from 380 to at least 1054. Both of them believe that they are the One True Church that Jesus established in his ministry. While the exact date is disputed, controversies over whether the Bishop of Rome possesses universal supreme jurisdiction over every other bishop, the Photian schism, the attempted excommunications of Michael I Cerularius and Pope Leo IX, Massacre of the Latins, Sack of Constantinople, and a range of other theological and ecclesiastical disagreements led each to be not in communion with the other by 1215. According to historian Peter Heather, the conclusion of the Fourth Council of the Lateran is the moment when the mutual schism was sealed.

• The large majority of mainstream academic resources and Protestants generally affirm that a mono-episcopate system did not exist in Rome before the 150s. This is a view held by Peter Heather (1), Bart Ehrman (2), Gavin Ortlund (3), and standard academic works on the history of the papacy. They almost uniformly reject the idea that the Bishops of Rome were ever the "head" of the Church until astonishingly late. They view the Roman-Byzantine Emperors as having ultimate practical authority in the church until at least the 800s. This stream of thought sees Peter's establishment of the Roman Church as a "pious fiction" unsupported by the historical account.
• Eastern Orthodox believe that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. However, they believe that this was a conciliar recognition that recognized a honor of a primus inter pares rather than supremacy. They would affirm the Bishops of Rome before 1054 being a "head" in one sense (primacy) while rejecting it in another form (supremacy).
• Roman Catholics agree that the Bishop of Rome has already possessed implicit supreme universal jurisdiction over all bishops and in narrow circumstances can speak ex cathedra. The majority interpretation is that this was at least partially "a development of doctrine" that led up to the statements of Vatican I. A minority, generally confined to traditionalist Catholic theologians, believe that this was always recognized and merely forgotten in the East.

Different theological and historical views have led to a slow-motion, and long-term, edit war lasting for at least a decade between dozens of editors on exactly how the authority of the early Bishops of Rome should be described.

1. Bishop of Rome from [Date] to [Date]
2. Head of the [Optional: Roman] Catholic Church
3. Head of the [Optional: Eastern] Orthodox Church
4. Head of the [Optional: Universal] Christian Church
5. Other description not listed.

I hope that this RFC will resolve this controversy. SirachJohn (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

It would be helpful if this RFC pointed to examples of this dispute and didn't just describe the background. Jahaza (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Bishop Linus is described as "Pope" and "Head of the Catholic Church from c. 68 to c. 80". Similar terminology is used for every claimed Bishop of Rome prior to the Great Schism. I didn't identify any specific editors on purpose, but this arose out of JasterOmega wanting all Christians prior to 1054 as "Roman Catholic/Catholic" in articles. Other editors have similarly reverted any removal of "Head of the Catholic Church" or listment of "[Roman] Catholic Church" as the ecclesiastical body they belong to in the infobox. For instance, Pope Damasus is described as the "Head of the Catholic Church" in the 300s.

He is described as:

[Speaking] out against major heresies (including Apollinarianism and Macedonianism), thus solidifying the faith of the Catholic Church, and encouraged production of the Vulgate Bible with his support for Jerome.

And also settling the canon (this is inaccurate):

He presided over the Council of Rome of 382, which established the canon, or official list, of sacred scripture.

The development of the Christian canon is complicated, but Garrett Ham wrote an excellent article on how the Council of Rome was a local council that did not settle the canon issue. (3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, The Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and others are contained in the Eastern Orthodox Bible but not in the canon of the Council of Trent.) Major theologians in both the Western Church (until the Council of Trent) and Eastern Church debated the status of the septuagint books.

The same applies to any pre-1054 Bishop of Rome. The same editor commented on Simplicious:

Pope Simplicius is universally identified in historical sources as the Bishop of Rome or Pope of the Catholic Church. Pope of the Chalcedonian Christianity is not a historical title or accurate institutional description

The term "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" are overwhelmingly used on their pages with links to this page. A few have "Eastern Orthodox" and "Orthodox" listed. I believe that both potential answers lead to implicitly delegitimizing the other communion for the reasons aforementioned. Nor do I believe that this is a case where we can safely ignore the opinion of the other (as in anti-vaccination or climate change denial). This is all very controversial, very disputable stuff — many have convincingly argued that the question of authority is the true reason for the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant split within Christianity — which is why I prefer option one. Just list their status as bishop of Rome. SirachJohn (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree: Bishop of Rome. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

• Choice one due to longstanding theological, historical, and ecclesiastical controversies that indisputably do not possess consensus. This is a complicated question that cannot be unequivocally answered in the affirmative until 1054 or 1215. I have no strong opinion on which date is superior. SirachJohn (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  I never said that all Christians in that time belonged to the Catholic Church—only all the Bishops of Rome—unlike you, going around saying these popes belonged not to the Catholic Church but to the Great Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, the Imperial Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and many more. There were Christian heresies at that time, as well as Christians who did not accept certain councils, such as the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Chalcedon, etc. At the time of not accepting those councils, they do not belong to the Catholic Church since they separated from it. It does not mean that they stopped being called Christians, just as today, Protestants are Christians even if they do not belong to the Catholic Church. JasterOmega (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  I never claimed that they were Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox. I said that alternative language is preferable to a word with a contested meaning. Note that the current Roman Catholic Church (official name used in councils) and Orthodox Catholic Church (official name used in councils) churches both claim to be this "Catholic Church" in question. At the time of not accepting those councils, they do not belong to the Catholic Church since they separated from it. Orthodox believe the exact same thing about Catholics: that they split off from them. That their claim of papal supremacy caused the West to schism from the One True Church. It's not as simple as the use of "Catholic". SirachJohn (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  The term "Catholic" which these rival churches use means "Universal", and it is essentially a claim to have a worldwide jurisdiction. Dimadick (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm aware. (And it's a reason the current title is problematic.) SirachJohn (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  So far I agree with everything SirachJohn has said, which is all supported by evidence held by the majority of scholars. I have seen no arguments in support of papal supremacy that have made any points that carry any real weight. SirachJohn is just right. Bishop of Rome. That's the answer. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

  "They view the Roman-Byzantine Emperors as having ultimate practical authority in the church until at least the 800s." I don't really see how this affects terminology. We already have an article for the Byzantine Papacy (537-752), when each papal election or appointment had to have the approval of the Byzantine Emperor. Pope Zachary in 741 was the last one to be appointed in this way. With relations with the emperors being strained in the 730s (the Papacy was not thrilled with having Iconoclast emperors on the throne), and with the Exarchate of Ravenna collapsing in the ealy 750s, the Byzantine Empire lost its influence over the city of Rome and was in no position to defend it from military threats. We next have the Frankish Papacy (756-867), when the Popes have found new protectors (or overlords) in a sequence of Frankish kings. The Byzantines were unwilling to fight the Lombards in defence of Rome, the Franks were willing to protect Rome in their place. Dimadick (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  That was just a quick summary to readers who are unfamiliar with the "papal supremacy" (Catholic), "papal primacy" (Orthodox), or "honored position but not otherwise uniquely special position" (Protestant) debate in the historical & theological literature. The Bishop of Rome's history is a subject that one could study for years on end without ceasing.

  A simple description is best due to the fact that Peter Heather, Bart Ehrman, and the vast majority of scholars would argue that they wouldn't have theologically agreed with papal supremacy or even recognized that it was a concept until at least 500 or 600 AD. Both Roman Catholics/Catholic and Eastern Orthodox/Orthodox claim that pre-1054 Bishops of Rome were part of their church. Therefore, by picking a side we are legitimizing one claim over the other. There's of course no way to do this neutrally in line with the sources. "Bishop of Rome" is the best choice. It simply states what they were and lets the reader draw their own private theological beliefs on what their assumption of the role means.

  Is that a position you lean towards? SirachJohn (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

We have an article on the title Pope (which literally means "father") that is traditionally used for the bishops of both Rome and Alexandria, but is typically unique to them. There are attestations for the term being used for the bishops of both cities in the 3rd century. Later bishops of Rome took action to enforce their exclusive rights to the title. "Despite its earlier use to refer to any bishop, in 998 an Archbishop of Milan was rebuked for having called himself "Pope", and in 1073 it was formally decided by Pope Gregory VII that no other bishop of the Catholic Church would hold the title." Dimadick (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

• Choice one as per WP:NPOV and per my last comment. - AProtestantBoy (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• Choice one I would be in favor of "Bishop of Rome from x to x," but not changing the term "Catholic Church" to "Imperial Church," since that is a term no one is familiar with. I hope you can provide the source stating that all the popes you mention belong to the Imperial Church rather than the Catholic Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasterOmega (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  "Catholic Church" to "Imperial Church," since that is a term no one is familiar with. I disagree, we should go with neutrality over familiarity. - AProtestantBoy (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

That is not neutrality, imperial church refers to a church that is the state religion in an empire; even the Church of England in the British Empire is an imperial church. Imperial church can even refer to the Byzantine Church (of the Byzantine Empire) and the Russian Church (under the Tsars). Neither the Orthodox Church, nor Protestants (including Anglicans), nor other Christian denominations use the term "Imperial Church" to refer to the Church of the Popes of that era. Only a few radical Protestants use the term "Imperial Church" to describe the Catholic Church of that era just because is the state religion of an Empire (Roman Empire).JasterOmega (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any changes based on this RfC. The options for change provided are poorly premised and certainly without strong sourcing. The sources provided are hardly high-quality RSs (a Reformed Christian apologist? Really?). This is a badly formulated RfC looking for a problem where none exists. If specific changes are needed, they can be resolved on specific articles. Preferably, those resolutions will be sourced to something other than blogs. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

  Reformed Christian apologist? Really? Dr. Gavin Ortlund is more than a mere "Reformed Christian apologist". He's also a theologian that has a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary and a Masters of Divinity from Covenant Theological Seminary. Now, he is merely one of the many scholars SirachJohn as referenced.

  There is a problem that many pages relating to pre-Great Schism Bishops have anachronisms. That is indeed a problem. - AProtestantBoy (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

  "a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary" I am not certain about the extend of his training, but Fuller is closely associated with Evangelicalism in its main article. Dimadick (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  That is just one of the qualifications Ortlund has. Now, we can forget about him and discuss about other scholars SirachJohn citied. - AProtestantBoy (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1 - any further description beyond "Bishop of Rome" is unneeded - there was only one Bishop of Rome then, so there's no ambiguity, and since there is apparently theological disputes over whether these bishops were Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or both or neither, any further description would unavoidably result in WP "picking a side" in a theological and/or ecclesiastical matter, which we should not be doing. HierophantOfOmens (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose any changes based on this RfC by a drive-by Rfc-starter with zero mainspace edits and little or no understanding of what short descriptions are for, who did not bother to read about how to prepare a brief and neutral Rfc statement, or what is required before starting an Rfc, one of the most costly procedures at Wikipedia in terms of editor time and resources. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact; away for 7 24 days now since their 53-hour Wikicareer went silent, I suppose we won't be hearing from them again. What a waste of everyone's time. Mathglot (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2026 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 as the most neutral terminology; it is clearly inappropriate to describe pre-scism church leaders as popes in the article voice given the differing perspectives on them across multiple faiths that can reasonably claim them. The one caveat I'd add is that the precise date of the schism might be reasonably debated and subject to coverage on individual articles; but we obviously cannot rely solely on Catholic or Eastern Orthodox sources on those articles for statements made in the article voice - anything that is only citeable to those sources (or which is attributed only to them) and for which reasonably sourcable conflict clearly exists along sectarian lines has to be attributed ourselves per WP:BIASED. I think it's telling that so far everyone who has weighed in against this proposal has done so on purely procedural grounds; I don't think that that's enough to oppose such a common-sense conclusion. If people want to slow this down they need at least some independent sources indicating that early bishops of Rome were considered Catholic popes at the time or that no serious dispute exists over whether they should be considered ones today. We can of course say in the article text (or templates or the like) that such-and-such a figure is considered pope XYZ by the Catholic church (or vis considered such-and-such by the Eastern Orthodox Church), since that's attribution; what we can't do is describe them as "pope XYZ" in the article voice, not unless the sources are truly unanimous and show a lack of conflict or disagreement over that designation. What no one doubts is that they were Bishops of Rome, which should be the title we use in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Eamon Duffy's Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes (Yale, 1997) uses Catholic Church as the name of the papacy's church from Cyprian in the 3rd century. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (1988) starts making the distinction regarding the pope being Catholic from the 6th century forward (makes sense, as the Chalcedonian schism became firmer around that point). I think it'll be hard to find a solution that satisfies everyone, but Catholic Church is favored by scholars from a fairly early point. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  How can one reconcile WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE with this? - AProtestantBoy (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Rather simply: those sources are among the highest quality you can get. They and their content should be prioritized. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll let @SirachJohn answer this since he has access to better sources than I do. - AProtestantBoy (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• • "the sources are truly unanimous" Unrealistic expectations. We don't have unanimous sources on nearly any historical topic. Historiography involves vieweing events and primary sources through different theoretical approaches, and individual historians can reach entirely different conclusions about the same topics. Dimadick (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any changes based on this RfC. As said above, this has not been showing evidence that there is a single rule that applies thru all the changes during the 600 year period and many individual cases, so determine case by case and do not fail WP:V of what sources say for the individuals. I do not claim to have the full answer but note cases I think have obvious questions not mentioned here, where a bland general proposal is not considering the changes over time or individual cases of the history enough. e.g. 440-461 AD Pope Leo I first one recognized as head over all bishops in the Roman world = does he get title of before that as Bishop or after as Pope; Pope Gregory I also known as Pope St Gregory I the Great - are we blocked from the formally correct title; Pope Leo IX in office before and after the schism - which title does he get; that the increase of central authority and meaning of "Pope" occurred *after* 600AD up to 1060 and is one cause for the schism; etcetera. I just think there's not been discussion showing that a single rule covers the cases, and there could be -- it's not all that many individuals over 600 years in the List of popes and I think any ruling needs to look at the cases. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2026 (UTC)