Talk:List of popes by length of reign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Archives: See also Talk:list of 10 shortest-reigning popes

Talk:List_of_popes_by_length_of_reign/Archives 1

Papal Title[edit]

"there is no proof of any Bishop of Rome claiming the papal title until centuries after the death of Jesus" This line has to change. What does the phrase "claiming the papal title" mean exactly? The title "Pope", the title "Pontiff" or the authority? The evidence for the authority claimed by the early Papacy is subject to interpretation on both sides. Certainly, in the Epistle of Clement (c. 95 AD), Clement (traditionally the fourth Pope) is already writing with authority to a church in Greece. Irenaeus in Adverses Heresies (c. 180 AD) lists the first twelve bishops of Rome and speaks of the Roman Church's pre-eminent authority. This evidence can be discounted, but cannot be said not to exist.

St Peter - in or out? Redux[edit]

I realize I might be beating a dead horse, but I just don't get it: Could someone explain to me the reason St. Peter is not officially on this list?

First, it seems capricious to have a List of popes (from the Annuario Pontificio) which lists Peter, and then this list which makes him a footnote. If we are going to use the official Catholic list of popes, why would we alter the contents here and not there also.

Second, the "Notes on St. Peter" state "Most non-Catholics dispute St. Peter being on this list (and the list of popes) at all". So actually it would make sense to have the argument, as to whether or not Peter was a pope, made at the list of popes and not here at a "sub-list".

Third, I think it reads rather strangely on the Pope John Paul II article that he is the "second-longest pontificate (or the third-longest, as enumerated by Roman Catholic tradition)." considering that the pontificate IS a Roman Catholic tradition.

The inconsistencies continue at the List of 10 shortest-reigning popes, where we have Stephen as a footnote because he is NOT listed in the Annuario Pontificio. We should either follow the Annuario Pontificio or make our own list of who we think is a "real pope". But then again, that is an discussion to be made at Talk:List_of_popes.

So, finally, I will be bold and place Peter at the top of the list if there are no objections.

- [[User:Ekta;ot about recognizing Peter as a Pope, but is about recognizing one officially accepted and verifiable length for his reign, which there is not, and so Peter is excluded.

The large subsection devoted to the question of Peter's reign is more than sufficient to clarify the issue, and he should not be arbitrarily included in the list of longest-reigning when there is no concordance in the figures.
Once again, the question of whether or not he should officialy be counted as a Pope is irrelevant, this is not a complete list of Popes. Inclusion of Peter in this particular short-list has nothing whatsoever to do with maintaining "consistency" with the chronological list of all popes, and is inappropriate. One might as well ask why the list does not include all of the Popes, in descending order from the longest to the shortest-reigning, if we wish to be that pedantic.
--Supersexyspacemonkey 20:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence is exactly what I've been saying for a while now (and others have made the same suggestion previously). I don't think it's at all a question of pedantry. I've never seen the value in having only the top 10 longest-reigning and only the top 10 shortest-reigning. Why stop at 10? What's special about the number 10? We don't show only the top 10 most or least populous countries, or only the top 10 of most other things we list on Wikipedia. And why have 2 separate lists? Have one list, exactly as you say above, containing all the popes. Then this insufferable debate about St Peter would just go away. It's had its day, and its time has come. JackofOz 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea IMO, it just involves a metric crapton of work so it may be some time in coming. But I don't see how it would end the debate about St. Peter. The twofold question remains: How long was his reign, and did he in fact reign as Pope at all? To the first question there remain multiple answers that may affect his place in the list (see List of popes, and to the second there are a great many people who would answer "no". I'm afraid I don't take Supersexyspacemonkey's point above: if St. Peter was a pope then he definitely belongs on this or any other list of popes; if not then he does not. However, although I'm personally in the "not a pope" camp, I don't see the harm in including him in such a list. There are, after all, over 900 million people who believe he was. It's hardly non-NPOV to list him accordingly, even if a bone must be thrown to those who stronly oppose his inclusion in the form of a big fat asterisk or something. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with respect, I don't think it's in doubt at all. There's a difference between St Peter the apostle and St Peter the pope. Most Christians would recognise Peter as an apostle. But the papacy is an entirely and specifically Catholic institution, and they make their own rules about it. The Church has always maintained that Peter was the first pope and all subsequent popes are his successors. Other denominations don't even agree that the Catholic Church is a legitimate organisation, so they can hardly decree who is or is not in the list of Catholic Popes. That is for the Catholic Church alone to decide. They say he's in, so he's in. No non-Anglicans get to have a say about who the Archbishop of Canterbury is. JackofOz 01:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously think, as appearantly everyone except Supersexyspacemonkey does, that St. Peter should be on this list. Supersexyspacemonkey, states that "The twofold question remains: How long was his reign, and did he in fact reign as Pope at all?" I can only agree that the first question remains. The second "question" should be determined by those who name popes, the Catholic Church. (We obviously use that reasoning on the List of popes article.) That leaves the first question. We seem to have two lengths of time for St. Peter's reign, but both would put him in first place. Again, I think we be should consistent with the List of popes article. As to JackofOz's question, it seems to have been discussed over a year ago over at Talk:List of 10 shortest-reigning popes. Nothing came of it probably because of the large amount of work it would take. To me it sounds like a good but arduous idea. So in other words, have at it JackofOz! Finally, as most people seem to think St. Peter should be on this list, I will change it back if no one can give a good reason to not have him. - Ektar 03:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I haven't done it already is the amount of work involved (although, once it's done it should be easy to maintain - famous last words). I was hoping some nice person would let me off the hook, but since you've issued an invite, I guess it's down to me now. Soon, very soon. JackofOz 04:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, not exactly. First, you've left out a key word above, repeatedly. You and others keep saying "Catholic". You mean "Roman Catholic". More than one church, in communion with each other perhaps, but not Rome, claim catholicity and retain "Catholic" as its correct name, although most don't use it because Rome has successfully co-opted it for itself. In that and those that argue the question are other churches that say they're Catholic Churches then yes, it's a purely Catholic office. The proper nature of the papacy is a serious ecclesiological issue and one of the main ones that still divides the churches. St. Peter is venerated by both sides, and whether or not he was a Pope and thereby imparted some special charism to those that followed him in Rome (or even had one to pass on) is a central issue.
Of course only the Anglicans can say who the Archbishop of Canterbury is, but they have no say at all about who he was. If some misinformed Anglican were to tell me that Henry VIII of England personally took over the archbishopric of Canterbury I'd tell him he was wrong. It's contrary to established historical fact. Whether Peter was Pope or not is also an issue of historical fact for which there is, unfortunately, no independent evidence available by which to arrive at a neutral consensus. But there are plainly variant traditions which are at least as credible as the Roman claims, and they therefore deserve a note, at least. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Point taken about Catholic and Roman Catholic not being the same thing. As an ex-RC I should have known better. I defer to your obviously greater knowledge of these matters, however I would have thought that the ecclesiological debate about Peter's status is destined for oblivion. The Church has always claimed scriptural authority (ie. Jesus' own words about rocks and keys) for Peter being the first pope, so it is hardly going to backtrack now after 2,000 years. (It would be a bit like them now admitting that Jesus was not really the Son of God.) But even if the RC Church did come to the view that Peter was not the first pope after all, the question then would be, who was? And by what authority? There may be no independent evidence to settle the question of whether or not Peter was the first pope; but I would suggest there is less than no evidence for any other claimant. Either the entire list including Peter is legitimate, or there has never been a legitimate pope at all. If the legitimate papacy is held to be an institution created by Jesus personally during His lifetime, it ipso facto cannot have started some time after His death. This probably sounds like I'm arguing the RC position; I'm not. I just can't see the RC Church ever changing its tune about Peter. And since the papacy is their "baby" more than that of any other denomination - I'm talking historically, not ecclesiologically or theologically - I can't see how we could ever have a credible list of popes that failed to include him. Footnotes about differing claims would seem to be the way to go. (but now I think we're saying the same thing) JackofOz 07:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you this far: the RCs are deeply unlikely to abandon the Papal claims, but that hardly means the debate is destined for oblivion. As long as they uphold them, there will be other confessions that disagree, so this is therefore the best means for keeping the debate alive.
I don't really want to enter on a debate over the Papacy at this time, but I will point out that there's far more than "no evidence" for other "claimants" (as if it was they themselves making the claims.) See Apostolic Constitutions if nothing else. Other than that, we are in the end saying the same thing at this point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole Catholic vs. Roman Catholic thing is really semantics because most people assume the folks over at Vatican when saying Catholic. (Plus, I'm lazy and I don't like writing out Roman Catholic in a discussion when the term Catholic should suffice.) I agree, though, that this article should say that it is a "list of 10 longest-reigning Popes of the Roman Catholic Church" since most people will assume that a list of 10 longest-reigning popes will be a list of Roman Catholic popes. (In fact, that is how it is written at the List of popes article.) I mean, honestly, does anyone think of antipopes and/or other "Catholic" churches when looking for information on the "Pope" and the "Catholic church"? Anyways, I also agree with TCC in that we cannot decree who St. Peter "was." My concern is that this list NEEDS to be consistent with the List of popes article, and that article lists St. Peter as a pope. If anyone wants to make a list of who they think was or was not a real pope, then that should be a separate list. But the problem with that is that Wikipedia is not for original research. We should not be picking and chosing who we think is a "real pope." - Ektar 04:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind using "Catholic" in the article title since roughly 98% of English-language readers will know is meant and/or not have a problem with it. I wished to make the distinction clear for the purposes of this discussion, however.
You're absolutely right that we ought not be doing any picking and choosing here. But what's the normal Wikipedia procedure where one party says X, another party says Y, and both have references to back them up, or at least have something that says that notable group Z holds an alternative point of view? That alternative POV needs to be represented. At this point that's all I'm saying. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem is that this list is not its own entity and is derived from List of popes. (otherwise it would be considered original research). There is no dispute that he is listed on that page, so if you wish to dispute him as a "real pope" please discuss it at Talk:List of popes. I have replaced Peter on this list and have made a note that this list is derived from the List of popes.
The alternate POV is represented in the footnote, but once again this is a point that is better made at List of popes. I hope this makes sense to everyone. -Ektar 19:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interested parties might want to see here for a discussion of the POV issues involved in saying without caveat that St. Peter was "pope". Personally, I think that NPOV requires us to rely on secular history and as such relegate St Peter to the footnote, given that claims made for him cannot be proven from credible sources.

I would also note this from the NPOV policy:

"Many adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that we say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z."

Obviously, this is a conflict over emphasis, I am somewhat troubled to see secular history regarded as an "alternate POV" to sectarian doctrine. Sumergocognito 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the link to Talk:Pope_John_Paul_II/Archive4#St_Peter_POV, but your argument on this page is out of place. This article is calculated from and therefore dependant on List of popes. This is CLEARLY not a matter of POV, because St. Peter, as a matter of fact, is on that list. Please understand how important it is to discuss people on the list at Talk:List of popes and not here (unless you're discussion time calculations, length of list, etc.).
My belief is that it should be made more evident in this article that it is calculated from a document published by the Vatican. I believe adding something along the lines of "This list is calculated from the List of popes, which is itself taken from the Annuario Pontificio, the annual directory published by the Holy See." would help clarify things. - Ektar 06:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should perhaps read this thread on Talk:List of popes which address the same basic issue as I was speaking to here and on the JP2 talk page. If you want to start a new thread at Talk:List of popes or revive the old one, please do and I will be happy to discuss the issue there. The notation you suggest would be helpful but tends to overlook the crucial point that the Roman Curia is not the arbiter of historical fact. The pontifical yearbook may accurately record the dates of reign of most popes but does not adequately distinguish between verifiable facts and tradition. Ultimately, I don't think even admitting the bias of the source ex ante ameliorates the problem because you still end up mingling undeniably real historical people like Pius IX or even Leo I with largely legendary figures like St Linus or St Peter where claims made on his behalf (centuries later) lack any contemporary proof. It's like a child making a list of his favorite people and, along with his parents and grandparents includes Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Even if you are forthright about the limitations of the source, in an encyclopedia this creates a false and misleading context. Sumergocognito 08:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again thank you for the link to a discussion on an appropriate talk page, but I still do not understand why you insist on making your case here when it is clearly not the forum for it. I also appreciate the invitation to start a new thread at Talk:List of popes, but that burden is not on me, since I do not have the problem that you seem to have with that list. If you wish to continue or start a new discussion there I will be more than happy to discuss it there. Please understand, I am not trying to be difficult, I just believe it important to keep discussions where they belong. It is tough enough as it is to find relevant discussions on Wikipedia. - Ektar 19:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On this issue, I think it would be important to note the difference between the Catholic tradition that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and the Catholic tradition that Peter was Bishop of Rome for a particular period of time. I have no problem beginning a list of popes with Peter. Obviously, the earlier parts of the list have no independent evidence beyond later tradition to back them up, but that is not terribly important in context of making a list of popes, because we can simply note that the early part of the list is conjectural. But it is quite difference to have a list of papal reign lengths and to include these folks. For one thing, as far as I am aware, while the official papal lists include Peter, Linus, and so forth, they do not give specific official dates for them. That Pius IX ruled for 32 years is a matter of historical fact. The tradition cannot even agree on whether Peter was pope for 25 or 34 or 37 years. Until Pius IX passed 25 years (the first Pope to do so, you'll note - prior to him, Pius VI was longest with slightly less than 25 years), I believe that Peter was held to be first by virtue of his 25 years in Rome. Only after Pius passed that point was the idea recalibrated to make Peter first by virtue of his lifespan from the death of Jesus. One assumes that if, by some freak, we get a Pope who rules for 38 years, the Church will again recalibrate so as to keep Peter still in the lead. john k 19:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To further clarify, there is simply no way to say how long Peter was Pope. It would be just as legitimate to say that, having reigned in Rome for 25 years, according to Catholic tradition, he is the fourth longest reigning Pope, behind Pius IX, John Paul II, and Leo XIII. john k 19:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually a very good point, and one that is not made in the footnote. It should come as a shock to no one that I am inclined to stick with measuring Peter's "papacy" by the years listed on List of popes. (Although that still leaves the issue of his year of death, but either year would still put Peter in first place.) It should be noted, though, that the Holy See doesn't measure Peter's pontificate only by his time in Rome. (But, considering such things as the Avignon papacies, obviously Roman residence doesn't seem to affect a man's ability to be called Pope by Catholics.) -Ektar 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Avignon Papacy does not, in fact work. You are right that it doesn't matter whether or not the Pope is physically living in Rome. But it does matter that the Pope is Bishop of Rome. Because that's what the Pope is - the Bishop of Rome. The Avignon Popes, for all that they lived hundreds of miles away, were most certainly Bishops of Rome. It seems hard for me to see how Peter, during the time when he was (according to tradition) living in Jerusalem and Antioch, before he ever visited Rome, can be considered Bishop of Rome. I would add that, at least in the early 20th century, Pius IX was considered by Catholics to be the longest-reigning Pope. See the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pius IX: "His was the longest pontificate in the history of the papacy." [1] You ask me on my talk page, rather absurdly I think, for a source for the claim that the list of popes without Peter is "confirmed by contemporary historical data." I'm not sure how to answer this. The earliest popes on that list are Sylvester I and Leo I. Are you trying to deny that the length of their reigns can be confirmed by contemporary sources? My understanding of the consensus, as supplemented by the wikipedia article on the Liber Pontificalis, is that the basic correctness of papal information from the time of Constantine on is not really under dispute - I shouldn't have to cite sources for information which is common knowledge. On the other hand, you are claiming, without, so far as I can tell, having ever cited a source, that Peter is considered the longest-reigning Pope. Given that I have found a Catholic source giving Pius IX as the longest-reigning Pope, I would now ask that you provide some evidence to back up this claim. john k 19:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The official title of pope (which today includes "Bishop of Rome" and "Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City" for that matter) has changed overtime. Obviously, to the Catholic church, Peter didn't need to be the "Bishop of Rome" or the "Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City" to be pope. At that point he only needed to be "Successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles". I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm just saying that is what they believe.
My source is simple: List of popes (whose source is the Annuario Pontificio) Your Catholic source has been superseded. - Ektar 19:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, how could Peter have been "successor of Peter"? JackofOz 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I copied and pasted the wrong phrase and didn't use the brain. Switch that with "Vicar of Christ" or "Servant of the Servants of God" or even "Patriarch of the West," all titles held by the pope. I believe my point still stands though and actually it helps me illustrate the point that today's title doesn't apply to all popes. (Like "Sovereigns of the State of the Vatican City" wouldn't apply to any "pope" before the creation of the state.) - Ektar 20:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peter was certainly not "Patriarch of the West" until he arrived in Rome, since he wasn't in the West. Your "Vatican City" comparison is fraudulent, because nobody has ever said that the two terms ("Pope" and "Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City") are synonymous. On the other hand, to most people, "Pope" is considered to be synonymous with "Bishop of Rome." This is especially the case in that every person who has ever been called Pope has been the Bishop of Rome. It is not as though there was some independent office of "Pope" which came to rest with the Bishops of Rome. Rather, the Bishops of Rome came to claim the title of "Pope," and along with it, various claims to sovereignty over the entire Church. Once again, the fact that the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates Pius IX as the longest-reigning Pope indicates that, until quite recently, Catholics generally believed that the Papacy was inextricably tied up with Rome as well. BTW, the List of Popes article most certainly does not say that it comes from the Annuario Pontifacio - the sources listed are:
  • John N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Oxford University Press, 1986.
  • AA.VV., Enciclopedia dei Papi, Istituto dell'Enciclopedia italiana, 2000.
  • Pontificia Amministrazione della Patriarcale Basilica di San Paolo, I Papi. Venti secoli di storia, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002.

It is to be added that most lists I have ever seen do what this site linked by our list does, and give Peter 42-67, which is to say, the 25 years he was reputedly in Rome. At any rate, a wikipedia article is not a source. Since not all of us have the Annuario Pontifacio at hand to reference, could you please indicate what it says that supports your position? It is not enough to just say that a source says what you says it does. john k 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


By your own reasonin, Peter could most certainly be "Patriarch of the West" without being there... remember the Bishop of Rome need not be in Rome to be bishop. But that is aside the point. Calling my "Vatican city comparison" fraudulent, makes me think you missed my point. Very simply, the point is papal titles are added and changed but the office stays the same. A pope is pope by virtue of assignment not by his claim to titles. Just because the office was given the title "pope" in the 4th century doesn't mean the office didn't exist previously. (That is to say, just because Siricius, as Bishop of Rome, claimed the papal title pope, it does not mean the office did not exist before him.) I guess someone pointed out that this discussion has taken place at Talk:List_of_popes#Anachronistic_use_of_"Pope" but it seemed a consensus had not been reached. Only 4 people had commented, and their thoughts seem to be split.
I believe most people who don't study the papacy (and that would be most people in the world) think of the pope first and foremost as the leader of the Catholic church. But once again this is aside my overall point that, as even you pointed out, practically every list of popes has Peter on it. And every list has Peter with a papacy of at least 25 years, and therefore removing him (or leaving him only in the footnotes) should be considered corruption of the data.
You are correct in pointing out that the Annuario Pontifacio is not listed as a reference. I stupidly assumed it was. My apologies. - Ektar 05:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in the traditional list Peter is always listed as Pope. How long he is considered Pope seems to be up for dispute, and I would strongly object to giving 34 or 37 years as some sort of undisputed traditional figure. The traditional figure was always 25 years until 1871, when the Church was faced with the awkward fact that Pius IX had now reigned longer than Peter. I'm not sure if this was simply accepted (it appears to have been accepted by the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1911, which gives Pius IX as the longest reigning Pope), or if it was at this point that this "Peter was Pope from the time Jesus called him his Rock" business was conjured up, but the idea that someone can be Pope without also being Bishop of Rome hardly seems to be well-established to me, and Peter certainly cannot have been Bishop of Rome before he got to Rome (likewise, it is hard to see how a man living in Jerusalem and then in Antioch without ever having visited the west can be considered to be Patriarch of the West). So, we are left with a) the fact that there is no independent evidence of any kind about the length, or even the existence of Peter's papacy; and b) the fact that tradition, our only source on this matter, does not give a terribly clear answer as to how long Peter's pontificate is to be considered - 25 years is at least as valid a possibility as 34 or 37. Indeed, I find these dates utterly confusing, as 30 AD was not a date early in Jesus's ministry, as claimed by our article, but rather the year of the crucifixion, assuming we use 4 BC (the year of Herod's death) as our year for the birth of Jesus, and 33 as Jesus's age at death. Once again, I would like to see some kind of specific information on the claims made in the "dates of his reign" section of the article that the claims made there are actually ones made by the Catholic Church. It is not enough simply to say that this is all in the Annuario Pontificio - if you have that document in front of you, some quotations, or at least specific paraphrases with page numbers references, would be helpful. If you do not have it, then how can we know that this is what it says? john k 21:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually found the Annuario Pontificio and copied the relevant page. (The Chronology of Popes is on the first page). Unfortunately, there is a long note in Italian, which I can't read well enough to understand. There are quite a few footnotes that might be relevant, so I hesitate to write it all down here. If anyone would like to see a copy, I can try to post it or work out some other arrangement. Sumergocognito 01:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Sources[edit]

To anyone who wishes to change the source of this article: PLEASE cite a source. "Contemporary historical data" is terribly vague and wrought with POV. If you will not use List of popes as a source, please give another source. If you are using List of popes (but wanting to exclude Peter), please give your parameters for not listing him AND leave him on the list. Not listing him and making him a footnote makes it seem you are not using List of popes as your source.

Granted the List of popes has a Catholic POV to it, not many seem to have a problem with that list since it is well noted. (Not too many people have a problem with information on the Jesus page having a religious Biblical POV. To put it crudely simple, the Bible "made" Jesus, and the Catholics "made" the Pope.) - Ektar 19:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Popes is, of course, the source for the reign lengths, but only because it happens to be convenient and agrees with all other sources on Popes for whom we have reliable information. But, at any rate, however vague my formulation is (and you are welcome to tweak it), it is nevertheless a basic fact that from Sylvester I on, the Popes are essentially historical figures, for whom we have what is generally considered to be accurate historical information about how long they reigned for, while before that such detailed information becomes more and more lacking, until we get back to the time of Peter, the length of whose reign has no contemporary sources whatsoever to back it up. And, again, if we are to go with convention, my understanding is that the conventional interpretation was that Peter was Pope from his arrival there in 42 until his death in 67, for 25 years. Basically, if we give him back to 30 we are essentially deciding ourselves what it means to be Pope, when there are, in fact, several POVs on such a question. It is better to just leave him off the list, note that we are only listing documented reign lengths, and leave in a long note about Peter's status. Once again, if you want me to do research about sources, you will have to explain to me what, exactly, it is you are disputing. Are you disputing that we know for certain the reign lengths of popes from around Sylvester I onwards? Certainly we know quite clearly the reign lengths for Adrian I, Alexander III, Urban VIII, Pius VI, Pius VII, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and John Paul II, don't we? Sylvester I and Leo I seem a bit more questionable, but those dates seem to be essentially agreed upon, as well. Or are you disputing that we have no actual contemporary sources for how long Peter was Pope? This also seems hard to gainsay. The Catholic Encyclopedia, not known for its compromises with skeptics, admits that there is no direct evidence for how long Peter was at Rome. john k 22:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we would be "deciding ourselves what it means to be Pope" anymore than List of popes has decided so by having Peter on that list. I just feel we need to be consistant with the information. In fact, I think leaving Peter off this list (while leaving him on List of popes) should be considered "deciding ourselves what it means to be Pope." We should either remove him (and every one up to Siricius) from both lists or keep everyone on every list.
I am inclined to keep everyone and in essence retell the Catholic tradition of pope. As I said before, I don't think it is any more POV than the retelling of the gospels in the Jesus article. Otherwise it seems to me we are inserting the "Bishop of Rome=Pope" POV by drawing the line at Siricius. (And again, if we believe that POV, then we should also remove all names prior to Siricius on List of popes as well) - Ektar 05:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC I would rewrite the section that discusses Peter to include cited arguments both for and against his inclusion, and both for and against the terms listed. I would use the official Roman Catholic account for all items on the list including Saint Peter. This is the official doctrine of the religion that has popes. To remove him from this list because some other church doesn't regard him as a pope would be like removing the Book of Wisdom from an article about Roman Catholic biblical scholarship. Religions have an inherent right to define themselves on their own terms. Durova 08:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As written I see no real problem with it, noting as it does the two grounds for questioning his inclusion (uncertainty over dates and the fact that it cannot be verified that any such title existed at that time). Including St. Peter absent verifiable historical documents in support of both dates and his claiming the office seems like arm-waving at best and revisionism at worst. The current content includes the claim, states the uncertainty, and in the end the article is much better for it. A list of the ten longest-serving Popes without additional encyclopaedic content would be pretty pointless IMO - a list of the top {arbitrary number} holders of {arbitrary office} sorted by {arbitrary criterion}, as it were. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, and also for the sake of consistancy, he (and a bunch of other "popes" for that matter) should be removed from the list of popes and made a footnote there too. I would like to point out that I am not exactly against that solution. My main concern with that is that I feel that we NEED to be consistent. I just believe that the better and NPOV solution is to present this information as "Catholic History," since the title of pope is exactly that. - Ektar 20:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it possible to have an NPOV list based on a passive repitition of Catholic History when that is (by it's very terms) POV? Sumergocognito 18:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same way it is possible to have any NPOV article which cites the Bible, Qur'an, Vedas, etc. You make it clear that the information is that particular religion's views. Marking the list with a footnote could hardly be considered a "passive repitition". - Ektar 19:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems as if we'd be mixing a candidate whose claim and date of reign are based purely on "a particular religion’s views" with claims (some of which) that you could look up in the New York Times. I think readers would be misled to include well documented facts along with assertions that don't have any documentation at all. On a general chronology of the popes, one would naturally assume that as you went backward through time, the level of confidence would diminish but here you'd be juxtaposing very different kinds of claims. Sumergocognito 22:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Abraham for how a good NPOV article handles divergent religious interpretations of a historical-religious figure. Durova 08:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

medcabal mediation[edit]

User:Ektar made a request for mediation on the issue of whether or not to include St. Peter [2], so here I am!

As far as I can tell, the list here is an assertion of fact; i.e., it asserts how long various people have served as pope. In that case, I believe the usual practice of WP:CITE applies.

My feeling is that a number of the problems here come from the need to produce a single list of "top 10" popes. (Top of the Pop[e]s). Perhaps one way to solve this problem is to have two lists: one list of the longest-reigning popes as defined by official (or, rather, quasi-official) Vatican tradition, and one list of the longest-reigning popes for which historical documentation exists.

There seems to be a debate over what "historical documentation" is; let me attempt to clear that up: it includes sources that historians are happy to take "at face value". The gospels, e.g., probably do not count; similarly, a long-standing "traditional" set of dates do not count. A record made at the time a pope "ascended" (is that the term) is probably valid.

As for "who counts as Pope", I think it is fair to allow the Vatican to decide that. The nature and name of the office has evolved over the years; for example, the term "scientist" was I believe a mid-19th century coinage, but that doesn't mean we can't include Newton on a list of scientists.

Of course, in all of this, the rule must be that where there are tricky questions, the article must cover them. Also, bear in mind that a lot of the work you guys are doing could also appear in other pope articles.

Does this help at all? Sdedeo (tips) 19:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I believe it was very helpful.
Your suggestion to have 2 lists is an excellent idea. I had thought of that but was afraid of the resulting problems:
* Which list would remain on this article? I believe this list, as named, should coincide with List of popes, and therefore have St. Peter on it (not as a footnote as he is not a footnote there).
* What will be the qualifiers (and name) for the other list? Should it start at Siricius? (List of 10 longest-reigning Bishops of Rome who have taken the title of Pope) Pope Silvester I? (List of 10 longest-reigning Popes from the First Council of Nicaea) Pope Martin V? (List of 10 longest-reigning Popes from the Council of Basel) or maybe Pope Pontian? (List of 10 longest-reigning Popes with exact historical dates according to List of popes)
(I know that last one seems rediculous but it is no less arbitrary than any of the others. That is unless we decide to define what a Pope is, and in doing so conduct original research and make a POV.)
I will repeat that, my biggest concern is that this list ("List of 10 longest-reigning Popes") should be consitent with List of Popes. Any other list should be titled as my examples above or else it will be inserting a POV into the term "Pope." (ie. Pope is only the Bishop of Rome, or Pope is only those who have been Sovereigns at the Vatican) - Ektar 20:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the POV is avoided by using the Vatican list as the starting point. Then you have two lists in the same article:

  1. list of 10 longest-reigning popes using the (semi)official Vatican list which for its earliest dates would not satisfy a historian
  2. list of 10 longest-reigning popes using only data from sources that would satisfy a historian

You don't have to "title" the lists; just explain why two are necessary (some of those early dates are pretty vague.) Again, just to be clear, the reason some entries in the "list of popes" list might not be included in #2 is only because good historical sources for their reigns are not available.

Another option would be to have a single list, and put asterixes next to names whose dates don't have satisfactory historical evidence.

Sdedeo (tips) 21:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last option sounds pretty good to me. 130.91.46.30 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC) [this was me - don't know how I got logged out. john k 23:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)][reply]
I would also agree that the last option sounds best, but I believe that would not satisfy those people whose agenda it is to remove St. Peter from the list. I find it interesting that these people don't seem to have a problem with Pope Silvester I who is on the list and who would be removed by practically any reasoning that would remove Peter. Why not remove him as well? And why stop there? Why not remove Pope Leo I or Pope Adrian I.
I guess my issue with these people is that they have not given a source for their truncated list. They haven't even given a verifiable cut off requirement. - Ektar 20:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for a particular cut off point, perhaps St Eleutherus would be satisfactory. I have read that regnal dates for earlier Bishops of Rome are only estimates. see below for the full cite. I wasn't sure weather the note should be read "up to and including" or just "up to" but it wouldn't matter, if he or his successor is the first Bishop of Rome whose dates of reign are historically verifiable in some way, that would leave Leo I and St Sylvester in.
The Church Visible: The Ceremonial Life and Protocol of the Roman Catholic Church By James-Charles Noonan Jr. Among the appendices is a chronology of the popes which has the following footnote: "The source for the dates of each pontificate is the Annuario Pontificio of the Holy See. The dates of the pontificates up to St. Eleutherius are estimated based on historic data and legend."
Noonan is as Catholic a source as one could ask for, (the last page shows him receiving a skull cap from the Pope). The date of death for St. Peter is listed as 64 and it does not give a date of accession. I would read the footnote to mean that the Annuario itself (or at least an unquestionably pious commentator) concedes that the regnal dates for the first two centuries worth of popes cannot be known with historical certainty.
Sumergocognito 22:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I think Noonan's book gives us a source for the use of asterixes to denote reigns whose lengths are estimates and not fixed. Are you OK with the asterix solution? Sdedeo (tips) 23:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, provided all the qualifiying notes stay at the end. Prefferably, St Peter could be at the top of the list, but we would keep the enumeration as it is (i.e. Pius IX would still have the slot labeled #1 and so on. (given there's not really a fair estimate of how long his reign should be.) Sumergocognito 03:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone do please remember WP:AGF; I suggest we wait to hear from other folks involved in the dispute to see if the "asterix" solution is OK with them. Sdedeo (tips) 21:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to complicate things, but are there any other sources that can be referenced as well? I kind of fear that Noonan might be "too Catholic" of a source. A reference to another "less Catholic" cut off point should be used as well. Maybe I am being unrealistic in asking for a lot of different POVs, but in this sort of article, that is better than adopting a single POV.
(For instance, I do believe there is a point to the Siricius (Bishop of Rome=Pope) case. Not to call that that POV "less Catholic," but it certainly has it's merits. I was just asking for outside verification of that view. I was also against it (or any POV) being the only one employed by this list. - Ektar 04:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certaintly more sources can be used; I only meant that the Noonan book was a good place to start with and as a place to resolve the deadlock. Definitely seek out other reputable sources to use so that the asterixes can be better sourced and substantiated. Sdedeo (tips) 05:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible solution[edit]

OK, so we have a single list with the top ten popes in order as defined by the dates given by the Vatican list. The names on that list whose dates of reigning are somewhat "suspect" because they rest solely on "legend" or "tradition" and cannot be substantiated by solid historical evidence are to be accompanied by an "asterix", and then a note at the bottom of the list explaining what the asterix means. A good source to begin with for what deserves an asterix is Noonan's book.

Ektar, john k, Sumergocognito are all OK with this solution. Sumergocognito is OK with this solution provided there is discussion of the details of Saint Peter's anomalous nature at the end. I personally think this is fine (more information is better, even if it somewhat duplicates info in a "parent" article), although of course that discussion will change and evolve (right now, e.g., I note that the section "was peter a pope at all" makes claims that definitely need sources.)

Just to be laborious, we all know this, but it's important to remember that wikipedia articles are always in flux and that they may change drastically over the years, so no-one can promise that any of these things will "stick". But I think we have an agreement between the three people who seem to be involved right now.

I believe this resolves the problem? If there are any objections to this, please reply; I'll wait twenty four hours or so, and then close this out as a happily resolved conflict. Sdedeo (tips) 03:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, haven't heard any complaints, so I'm assuming everyone is satisfied with the solution; I'll close out this mediation. Sdedeo (tips) 19:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

post mediation discussion[edit]

I would add, again, that I would still like to see some evidence as to what the "official Vatican list" says about Peter's pontificate. john k 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, I have a xeroxed the relevant page of the Annuario Pontifico, if it would help, I would be willing to type in the notes (in Italian) for someone else to translate. Sumergocognito 20:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter section[edit]

Would this be more appropriate on the page about St. Peter? A short note in this list should be sufficient. -- User:Docu

I second these concerns. It is certainly an interesting section, but it's arguments are not very directly relevant to an article on the longest reigning Popes. ANB (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of Proof[edit]

Would anons please stop adding the words "they believe" to the statement that "no bishop of Rome claimed the papal title until centuries until Jesus death" (I'm paraphrasing)?

The burden of proof rests upon those advancing a claim. To say that skeptics must prove that something isn't true is illogical and well-nigh impossible (you cannot prove a negative). As I said in the first place, if you have evidence that Peter or his early successors claimed the papal title than cite it. Otherwise there's not need to distance ourselves from a factual statement. As far as "dissenters" bearing the burden of proof, apart from self-interested mythology promoted by the Catholic Church, there isn't any claim to dissent from. Sumergocognito 19:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the title "pope" wasn't used... the belief of Peter's leadership is what counts. 222.127.122.27 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any proof of that belief either. (Cf. St Paul reproached St Peter to his face Gal 2:7ff) Papal claims concerning the origin of the Papacy have no more credibility than claims that English kings were descended from Woden both are self-serving legends Sumergocognito 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9805chap.asp - "PETER IN GALATIANS" By Jimmy Akin. Not trying to convert you, just airing a side. 222.127.122.27 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unreferenced tag[edit]

I added an {{unreferenced}} tag, as while the list of popes themselves is referenced from the Annuario Pontificio in the lead, both the lead and the "What about Peter" sections are entirely unreferenced. --Storkk (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was Peter a pope at all?[edit]

Why is this section here? This is a list page, FFS. There's some logic to a separate section on him, given that there's a query over how long he lived, etc, so that's fair enough. But treating this page as another battleground over RC/non-RC quibbles is not. Surely a simple statement, such as
"The Roman Catholic Church recognizes Saint Peter as the first Pope, though non-Catholics regard this claim as too proprietary; sources also differ on the length of his reign."
would do the trick. Opinions? Moonraker12 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that is in the article is an argument of words. It cannot be doubted (on biblical ground) that Peter was vicar of Christ and neither can it be sincerely doubted on historical grounds that he was in Rome. (Nota bene that the section in the article doesn't doubt this as well.) Peter, head of the apostles, in Rome makes him by nature leader of the Church of Rome, whether there was another bishop or not. It has no consequences to Catholic dogma whether Linus was ordained bishop and successor of St. Peter, or was bishop at the time of St. Peter's death and inherited his primacy as such (as he would, being the first man in Rome left-over, as the primacy was instituted as a perpetual one), though the pontifical list seem to indicate that it was the firstmentioned thing that took place. --84.154.66.141 (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And whether Pope means Successor of Peter or Visible Head of the Church has definitely no significance - of course Peter was no successor of himself. --84.154.66.141 (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_popes_by_length_of_reign&oldid=1201761074"