Talk:Diocese of Rome/Archive 1

distinguish

We need a way to distinguish between the dioceses which are Immediately Subject to Rome, and those that are within the ecclesiastical territory of Rome. In this capacity Rome is no different then the other archdioceses, in that the relationship is exactly the same as the other Metropolitan archdioceses. Links for the suffragan dioceses should go here, for the dioceses which are immediately subject, it should go to the Holy See article.

Suggestions as to how the article ought to be written would be most helpful. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Archdiocese?

Shouldn't this page be renamed to the Diocese of Rome? Isn't that what that church calls itself? Who calls it an archdiocese? Isn't archbishop, and for that matter patriarch, one of the more obscure titles of the Bishop of Rome? Rwflammang (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In this context it is an archdiocese. The pope is a metropolitan of several dioceses just like all the other archbishops. Agreed, it is more obscure, but here, it's the important one. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So, should I create a new article called Diocese of Rome which isn't just a redirect? Or should = = Archdiocese of Rome = = just be a section of that article? I prefer the second option personally. I see no reason why a list of suffragans needs its own article. Rwflammang (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rome is a special case. It doesn't like to play by the rules. Holy See is already an article, but that talks primarily about the office of the Pope. Options that I can see are:

1. Merge with Holy See to discuss the metropolitan functions of the Pope. I think there is more then enough material there already.

2. Status quo, where you have a separate article to discuss the functions of the pope as a metropolitan. This article is already very, very nice, and obviously met a gaping need, as evidenced by how quickly it has filled out. It is here we can discuss the roles of the Suburbicarian sees, and the dioceses which are suffragans to the Archdiocese of Rome.

3. Rename to the Diocese of Rome, which ignores the distinctions between Rome and her suffragans. I'd sooner support a merge with Holy See, then renaming to the Diocese of Rome.

I would guess your objection to the name is because the title that is used most often is Bishop of Rome. However, I have never heard of his see as the Diocese of Rome, whatsoever. It's usually the Holy See. In this context the proper name is Archdiocese of Rome. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I support option 3. The disctinction can be made in the article. I dunno why you never heard of the diocese of Rome; its easy enough to find with Google. Archdiocese of Rome, not so much. Rwflammang (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

N.B. A search of the Catholic Encyclopedia turns up 10 references to the diocese of Rome, none to the archdiocese. Rwflammang (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am completely in agreement with user Rwflammang. Both common usage and official usage support "Diocese of Rome". PeterMottola (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Sometime this week, I purpose to rename this article Diocese of Rome unless I hear a compelling argument against it. I'll make Archdiocese of Rome a redirect, as well as the two Roman Catholic (Archd|D)iocese of Rome titles. Rwflammang (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I attempted the move, but was unsuccessful. I have requested admin support here. Rwflammang (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Though there was a bit of discussion, the arguments presented are pretty clearly in favor of the page being Moved to Diocese of Rome. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC) The article is in excellent shape. What's your beef with the name? My reasoning is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is in fine shape, although I'd like to expand it with information about the actual local church, its vicariate, and its ministry to the people of the church and province of Rome.

But the name is broke, and needs fixed. As the official website makes clear, its name is diocesi di roma. Googling diocesi di roma turns up scads of hits. Googling archidiocesi di roma turns up NONE. Nada. Zip. Contrast this to (e.g.) archidiocesi di milano. The Google results for English are also striking, "diocese of Rome" turns up many times more hits than "archdiocese of Rome".

I came to this article by typing diocese of Rome into the Wikipedia GO feature, and came to a page with the big splash Archdiocese of Rome: (redirected from Diocese of Rome). This gives the clear impression that Archdiocese is the formal name, while Diocese is an informal name. But the reverse is true.

I don't want to be overly picky; I have no problem with a page called Archdiocese of Rome re-directing to Diocese of Rome. Many Americans mistakenly assume that Rome is an archdiocese since it is a metropolitan see. In America, all metropolitan sees are archdioceses or archeparchies; there are no metropolitan dioceses or suffragan archdioceses in the US. Thus many Americans mistakenly assume that the prefix arch- is an equivalent to the adjective metropolitan. It's understandable enough, and in informal locution it's fine. But the name of the article should reflect the official name of the entity.

Likewise, the pope is no longer called the archbishop of Rome. The only authoritative references to an archbishop of Rome I could quickly find via Google date from the 2nd to 5th centuries, and they are tellingly translated from Greek, Arabic, and Coptic, not from Latin. If Rome were an archdiocese, then its bishop would be called an archbishop rather more often than he is, and especially in official documents, but the facts are otherwise: in recent documents the Holy See always refers to its incumbent as the Episcopus Romanus, and never the Archiepiscopus Romanus. [ Note: I retract this last paragraph; the pope is regularly called an archbishop, but not the archbishop of Rome. He is called "archbishop of the province of Rome". See here for a reference. Rwflammang (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC) ]

That's splitting hairs. If he's titled the "Archbishop of the Province of Rome" that is precisely the same as the "Archdiocese of Rome". Diocese of Rome and Bishop of Rome may be more common, but they are incorrect in this (narrow) context.Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I agree that the pope is an archbishop, but that does not mean that the church of Rome is an archdiocese. A church and its bishop are two different things. Cardinal Ruini is an archbishop, and he has even been called arcivescovo di Roma, but to the best of my knowlege he has never been bishop of a non-titular archdiocese. Yes, the distinction between bishop and church may be splitting hairs, it is after all a technical distinction since the two go together most of the time. That's why archdiocese of Rome should redirect to diocese of Rome for the benefit of all non-hairsplitters. Rwflammang (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be overly picky; I have no problem with a page called Archdiocese of Rome re-directing to Diocese of Rome. Many Americans mistakenly assume that Rome is an archdiocese since it is a metropolitan see. In America, all metropolitan sees are archdioceses or archeparchies; there are no metropolitan dioceses or suffragan archdioceses in the US. Thus many Americans mistakenly assume that the prefix arch- is an equivalent to the adjective metropolitan. It's understandable enough, and in informal locution it's fine. But the name of the article should reflect the official name of the entity.

Why do non Americans always presume that it's because "of the Americans?". I'm NOT an American. As much as I'd like to be I'm not one. There are NO DIOCESES which are metropolitans, anywhere in the world! There are some Archdioceses that are suffragan to other Archdioceses, but other then Rome there are No dioceses which are metropolitans of other dioceses. It's not *JUST* America, but in the rest of the Catholic church as well. Benkenobi18 (talk)

But Rome is a diocese, and it is a Metropolitan see. That's exactly the point here. Maybe Rome is unique today (and maybe not), but in the past, there have been Metropolitan dioceses. Mainz had suffragans before it became an archdiocese, and it even had an archbishop. Bishop Augustine of Hippo had suffragans under him, and his church was not an archdiocese.

Also, I'll have to ask you for a reference for your statement, "There are NO DIOCESES which are metropolitans, anywhere in the world". Rwflammang (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"But the name of the article should reflect the official name of the entity." Rome has many names depending on the context. This is the Pope's Archbishop hat. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The church of Rome has many names as this article makes quite clear, but archdiocese does not seem to be one of them, certainly not officially. An article about the pope's archiepiscopate might be better named Ecclesiastical Province of Rome. At the very least we will be able to provide a credible reference for that name. Can you provide a reference for Archdiocese of Rome? I've been looking for one with no luck. Rwflammang (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Rename to Patriarchate of Rome or Patriarchate of the West... a subordinate archdiocese to a bishopric? 70.55.203.50 (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Patriarchate of Rome certainly is better attested on google than archdiocese of Rome, but the term seems to be mostly historical, and mostly used when discussing, not the particular church of Rome, but the relative jurisdictions of the Pentarchy. It is also the official name of a schismatic, non-catholic group in England. I oppose such a move. Rwflammang (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

and others all around the world?

So what does this mean, exactly? It is in the list of suffragan churches. Rwflammang (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean? It means that at present there are no dioceses which have suffragans. The reason I know this is because I've had to make a list of them all right here. List of Roman Catholic dioceses. Pope has many hats, Pope, Patriarch of the West, Metropolitan of Rome, and Bishop of Rome, which is unique. I really don't care to much about the nomenclature, but I would like the name of the article to indicate that Rome is in fact not a suffragan. which Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I removed the offending text from the article some time ago, and did not update this comment. If there are other suffragans around the world, they should be listed explicitly and not referred to as simply "others". The offending text can be seen in the list of suffragans here. Rwflammang (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Holy See

They are just the same, just merge it. 119.94.100.105 (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

They are about the same thing, but they are about two different aspects of the same thing. Currently, Holy See is almost exclusively about that thing's international relations. This article is almost exclusively about its internal organization and ministry. I don't see a whole lot of overlap between the two articles, and I don't really see how a merge would improve either article. Rwflammang (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. They are a same thing as you have said. So therefore, they should belong to the same article. The "See of Rome", "Diocese of Rome", or even the "Church of Rome" (in some perspectives) refer to the same banana called "Holy See". The "Vatican City" is distinct from the "Holy See" because, the territory just part of the latter. The other part is Rome in the Italian proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.55.17 (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

They are the same banana, but how would merging these articles lead to an improvement in either one? You'd be better off merging banana and Musa (genus), which are also the same thing. We should restrict our editing to making improvements to articles, and not in making over-long articles even longer. Rwflammang (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course since both of them are not long. The foreign relations part is long though. Banana is a fruit of a plant belonging to the musa genre. The Diocese is not a fruit of the Holy See. The Diocese of Rome is the Holy See and the Holy See is the Diocese of Rome. Its not just an international subject, it also serves as a local church in Rome. --112.206.34.55 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not foreseeing any improvement from such a merge. Rwflammang (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Then why Anakin Skywalker was merged with Darth Vader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.45.78 (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is what WP:DICTIONARY says:

	Wikipedia	Wiktionary
Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing (synonyms):	are duplicate articles that should be merged. For example: petrol and gasoline.	warrant different entries (e.g. petrol and gasoline).

Aren't Diocese of Rome and Holy See synonymous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.45.78 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Summus Pontifex

The article glosses the term "Supreme Pontiff" with the parenthetical phrase Pontifex Maximus, implying that the terms are equivalent. However, the English term "Supreme Pontiff" is almost always used to translate the Summus Pontifex, one of two Latin terms referring to the High Priest (Judaism), the other term being Sacerdos Magnus. Both terms for the title High Priest were commonly applied to bishops in ancient times. Indeed, Sacerdos magnus is applied to bishops generally to this day, while Summus Pontifex has come to be restricted almost always to refer to the pope. The office of the Jewish High priest is distinct from the Roman office of Pontifex Maximus, and the language of the article should be corrected to make that clear.

Later in the article, a bullet point says that the pope derives his authority as sovereign from the title Summus Pontifex. This is, of course, ridiculous, and it should be removed.

Rwflammang (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You did not read the Pontifex Maximus article, Pontifex Maximus does translate as Supreme Pontiff. Also, the Roman Emperors (who held power through holding multiple titles including Pontifex Maximus) transfered the title to the Archbishop of Rome. As such you have acted ridiculously. Spshu (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are right, and "supreme pontiff" can be used to translate pontifex maximus as well as summus pontifex, then we should avoid the term "supreme pontiff" and use the Latin titles. In any case, the pope derives no authority as sovereign from either title. Sovereign authority in Vatican City is ascribed to the diocesan bishop, or, sede vacante, to the college of cardinals. Rwflammang (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Pentarchy

To quote from the article:

thus the see is the Chair of Peter, in Rome according to Catholic position. From a historical Christian propective, it is the position of Patriarch of Rome, or the West, from which his authority comes from, but has recently dropped

Which seems to imply that the idea of the Chair of Peter is not as historical (or not as Christian?) as the idea of the Pentarchy. And yet the notion of the Pope sitting in the Chair of Peter is attested at least as early as the third century; Caecilian refers to it. As far as I know, the earliest documentation of anything that could arguably be like a Pentarchy is at least a century later during the ecumenical councils. And it is certainly the case that the Romans never thought of themselves as being a fifth of Pentarchy.

I propose that this sentence be dropped.

Rwflammang (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The article can not just be writen from a Roman Catholic point of view. The Patriarch of Antioch is also consider the see or chair of Peter (an Eastern Rite Catholic Patriarch of that see joke that if Peter had not died in Rome then he would be head of the Catholic Church). Second, the title dropped was the Patriarch of the West/Rome as if you looked at the source. The Patriarchial title comes from the varies church councils that the Bishop of Rome condoned and represented the highest position in the united Christian Church. The Pentarchy was last Patriarchal set up before the split off of the Coptic and Orthodox branches leaving Rome the only Patriarch in its faction for some time. Since the other two Patriarchs under the previous Petrine sees theory of Patriarchal powers plus a major of the Council agreed to the Pentarchy Patriarchs.

This Council's recognition of the special powers of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch served as the basis of the theory of the three Petrine sees (Rome and Antioch were said to be founded by Saint Peter and Alexandria by his disciple Mark the Evangelist) that was later upheld, especially in Rome and Alexandria, in opposition to the theory of the five Pentarchy sees.[12]

How would claim that Rome held power under the Petrine See doesn't adknowledge Jerusalem's status? After all, Peter himself was appointed at Jerusalem. Also, a Latin Patriarch was appointed during the Crusades and currently by the Latin Pope.

The precedence among patriarchs is determined by the rank of their see, according to the old order of the five patriarchates, followed by Cilicia, then Babylon. Between several titulars of the same see but of different rites the order is that of the date of their preconization.

That sentence should be restored. Spshu (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If the sentence is to be restored, it will have to be re-written so that it is grammatical, and it will have to make clear that his position as patriarch is not accepted as his source of authority by the people he actually governs. Rwflammang (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diocese of Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206111318/http://www.vatican.va// to http://www.vatican.va/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diocese of Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523034210/http://www.myetymology.com/english/suburbicarian.html to http://www.myetymology.com/english/suburbicarian.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Archdiocese or not?

The lede can't seem to decide whether this is an archdiocese of not. Clearly Rome is an ecclesiastical province, but is it or isn't it an archdiocese? The way I understood it, it is not. Elizium23 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Relationship between the Papacy and Episcopate of Rome

In the first lines of the page the reader could wrongly understand that the role of Bishop of Rome is a title that is received for being Pope, while actually it is because he's the Bishop of Rome that he is Pope. The article says: The Diocese of Rome is the ecclesiastical district under the direct jurisdiction of the Pope, who is Bishop of Rome as well as the supreme pontiff and leader of the worldwide Catholic Church. I think it should be edited into something like: The Diocese of Rome is the ecclesiastical district, whose Bishop is the Pope, the supreme pontiff and leader of the worldwide Catholic Church.

Ricky N.03 (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, I don't think makes things any clearer. You're right that "pope" is just a fancy title for anyone who is the Catholic Bishop of Rome; but it is a worthwhile distinction between the direct jurisdiction of the pope (Diocese of Rome) and the "leader of the worldwide Catholic Church", which came quite a bit later historically speaking. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The Throne Of The Pope In St. John Lateran?

The article could benefit from some clarification (I guess just put footnotes/citations?) on why the cathedra-chair in St. John Lateran is the "throne of the Pope" or ("Papal Cathedra") as opposed to being the throne/cathedra of the Bishop of Rome, just as any Cathedral for any Bishop has the cathedra-chair of that Bishop. Elsewhere in Wikipedia there are references to St. Peter's Cathedra-chair in ST. PETER'S. Does the Pope use that? If so, the Pope's cathedra-chair in ST. John Latern is NOT the Papal one, but the one for Rome's Bishop. I suspect this is going to be a replay of "If the Feathers belong to every Prince Of Wales, then they're the Prince Of Wales's Feathers" (which isn't true, they are the Feathers of the Heir Apparent to the Throne of England (or of Throne of the U.K. insofar as the U.K. contains England and many of its heraldic devices), but every Prince Of Wales has possessed the Feathers since every Prince Of Wales has been Heir Apparent. But if Wales leaves the U.K., the escutcheon for Wales will disappear from the Heir Apparent's coat of arms, while the Feathers and the cornet with two half-arches will remain (because that cornet is also not Prince Of Wales kit, but is Heir Apparent kit). You will write that if the Pope in his capacity as Bishop of Rome is the occupant of this cathedra-chair, it's the Papal cathedra-chair, when in fact this chair, and the building it's in, pertain to the Bishop of Rome, not the Pope, notwithstanding that for many centuries now (and maybe for all time) every Pope has also been Bishop Of Rome.74.64.105.76 (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Firstly, the Chair of St. Peter in the Basilica is not an episcopal cathedra, and does not confer any office to its occupant. It is a relic of St. Peter and a symbol of the Papacy. Secondly, the Bishop of Rome is, ex officio, the Pope. That is the way it always has been. Elizium23 (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Governance

I suggest adding an explanation of the administration of this diocese. Since the Bishop of Rome is the Pope, who is busy with the affairs of the Church at large, he presumably cannot perform all of the duties that fall upon an ordinary bishop and must have assistants.Bill (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)