Talk:List of popes

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

You need to remove Peter as the first pope. Firstly he is never referred to as a pope in scripture. He is referred to as an apostle. Second is that Peter was an apostle to the Hebrews. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for him to have been the first pope. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles not Peter. This is extremely disgusting anyone would ever believe Peter would have had anything to do with founding a fake church that follows the doctrines of the devil. If it isn't in the Bible, then don't listen to it people. 98.176.122.167 (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pinchme123 (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Peter could not have been the first Pope due to the FACT that she Catholic Church was not founded until it split from the Orthdox Church in 1054. Therefore any Pope before 1054 was either part of the Orthdox church or wasn't really a Pope. 75.111.230.188 (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources from 110 AD talk about the Catholic Church. --86.31.178.164 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The reliable secondary sources are strikingly consistent on point 2:

- Klaus Schatz, S.J. (Catholic), Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present (Liturgical Press, 1996): "If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no."

- J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (Oxford University Press, 1986): notes that the early Roman church was governed by a college of presbyters, not a single monarchical bishop, and that a sole bishop of Rome does not clearly emerge until the mid-second century — so Peter cannot be described as "bishop of Rome" in the later sense.

- Raymond E. Brown & John P. Meier (Catholic), Antioch and Rome (Paulist Press, 1983): argue that the monarchical episcopate (a single bishop over the city) did not appear in Rome until roughly the mid-second century (c. 140–150); before that, leadership was by a group of presbyter-bishops.

- Eamon Duffy (Catholic), Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (Yale University Press, 1997): states there is no reliable evidence that Peter ever functioned as bishop of Rome, and that the Roman congregation was led by a group of presbyters well into the second century.

- Francis A. Sullivan, S.J. (Catholic), From Apostles to Bishops (Newman Press, 2001): concludes the historical evidence does not support an unbroken line of single bishops reaching back to an apostolic appointment; the episcopate developed gradually.

- Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (Fortress Press, 2003): the standard study of the Roman church, arguing it was organized as fractionated house churches with no monarchical bishop until the later second century.

This is also consistent with the primary evidence those scholars cite: 1 Clement (c. 96) is written in the name of the Roman church, never names a single bishop, and uses "bishop" and "presbyter" interchangeably; the Shepherd of Hermas likewise speaks of Roman "presbyters" in the plural; and the earliest succession lists disagree on the order of the first Roman leaders (even the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, article "Pope St. Clement I," documents five conflicting orderings).

Proposed wording: rather than stating "Peter was the first pope" as fact, the article should read something like — "According to Catholic tradition, Peter was the first pope; however, most historians, including many Catholic scholars, hold that the office of a single monarchical bishop of Rome developed later, in the mid-second century, and that the New Testament does not depict Peter as bishop of Rome." This keeps NPOV by attributing the traditional claim and representing the scholarly consensus.

I'm glad to represent the Catholic side fairly as well — the same scholars note that Rome held a special prestige very early (1 Clement's intervention at Corinth; the "trophies" of the apostles in Caius, c. 200), and the Catholic view is that the primacy was present in germinal form and developed. The point is simply that "first pope" is a developed/traditional claim and should be attributed as such. Jplstoner (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The table refers to Pope Francis as "Francis I". It is wrong. He used a nom-composed regnal name, just Francis, and was the first to do so since Pope Lando. His article itself states so. Someone can correct the table? Thanks 2804:D41:F852:3E00:307E:DAC7:D0AF:A240 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You are correct. To add, if a future pope chooses to name himself Francis, he would be Francis II and the regnal roman numeral I will be added to Bergoglio's papal name. John Clementine (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

One logically requires the other... 86.31.178.164 (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Neither logically requires the other. The first pope from South America need not have been the first from the Americas. And the first pope from the Americas need not have been from South America at all. --Zundark (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

A few of the capitalized Latin papal names in the table have a U instead of a V (e.g., Stephen II is listed as STEPHANUS). Is there a good reason for this, or should they all be changed to V? --Zundark (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Add him as hes the new pope Herreritapedia (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Habemus Papam TheBigGuyBillyBob (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The table also inverts the number incorrectly; it's Decimus Quartus, not Quartus Decimus. (This is true for most of the entries, btw.) 81.164.105.164 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

If you are well versed in Latin and know that switching it is correct, then switch them all. As I understand it, Latin is one of thos languages where it could go either way, so I would use whatever the Vatican uses on the website or in official papers. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I based it on what the cardinal on the balcony said when he announced him (which was "Leonem Decimum Quartum", but that's in the accusative form, so the proper noun should be "Leo Decimus Quartus").

I think I recall enough Latin to remember that they don't invert their numbers like (eg) German does, so the tens should preceed the singular digits.

Will edit accordingly, but I wanted to make sure nobody had any issues with it as I rarely edit on wikipedia and am not interested in getting into a prolonged argument about stuff (which can happen here). 81.164.105.164 (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Robert Francis Prevost.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

donald trump is not the pope 2600:1700:4390:9330:DC8E:B897:950A:EC09 (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Ikr 2001:8003:B02D:1700:1DF9:2014:5F23:1E16 (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I removed the statement that the current pope is the first with dual citizenship. There is no source to back up this statement, and the only sources I could find were unreliable ones that appeared to just be copying this Wikipedia article. Even excluding the fact that popes get Vatican citizenship, scrolling up the page a bit it appears that Leo XIII had both French and Italian citizenship. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I have also been wondering the case of Leo XIII. If Carpineto Romano was under French rule when he was born, he probably got the French nationality automatically.--37.136.80.131 (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pope Leo XIV 2 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coat of Arms of Leo XIV.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The nationality description for Pius IX is that he was "subject and later the last sovereign of the Papal States, finally becoming an Italian citizen." But did he actually become an Italian citizen? I'm sure that as someone born in what later become the Kingdom of Italy he was eligible to become an Italian citizen, but obviously after declaring himself Prisoner in the Vatican, he would have no interest in taking up that status. I guess this is sort of a philosophical question, but did Italy formally and specifically make him an Italian citizen in some way, or can we say that he held that citizenship even if he never exercised it? --Jfruh (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The Google AI says "Pope Pius IX never became a citizen of Italy". I think someone went out of their way to include this 'fact' about the Popes. But they weren't citizens of Italy. This page should mention that they were Prisoners in the Vatican, which... it does not! I'm sure an earlier version of this page said they were prisoners in the Vatican. Which is more accurate. 38.111.252.98 (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Never use AI or LLMs as a source of information. Though they might provide leads worth seeking verification for elsewhere, they're notoriously unreliable. Largoplazo (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

In general, when a nation comes into being, it doesn't start with zero citizens and then define a process by which every person has to apply for citizenship one at by one. In the case of Italy, it seems (though I'm having a really hard time coming up with a reliable source that says exactly this) that, for the most part, everyone alive in 1861 who'd been born on land that, in 1861, became Italy was automatically granted Italian citizenship. I'd think that that would at least include all citizens of any of the nations that were united into the Italian kingdom, their former citizenships being of no further value. Largoplazo (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Pius IX is a pretty unique case, though! He was the sovereign of one of those states that was dissolved into Italy (in 1870 BTW, not 1861), he never formally agreed to said dissolution and continued to view himself as a head of state, he never traveled or had to have his citizenship recognized by some other authority, and Italy mostly left him alone in the Vatican where he continued to receive diplomats from other countries (in many ways the Latern Treaty formalized the de facto state of affairs that had held since 1870). I don't doubt that he would've been covered by Italian citizenship law and could've exercised Italian citizenship if he wanted it, but he never did so and in fact would've denied he was a citizen of any such state as Italy. I just feel like he's a particularly complicated case and reducing that to "became an Italian citizen" is eliding a lot. --Jfruh (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I don't see that it's important to list his Italian citizenship there. Even if it's mention, the "finally" wording is weird, implying that we or someone else were sitting on the edge of our seats until it came to pass. If a citizenship must be mentioned, perhaps it should be the one he operated under, the one he was born under. Was "Papal States" a citizenship? Or "Urbinese"? Largoplazo (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I am no expert, but this needs to be resolved. The chart below lists several, but none are "Order of St. Augustine." Which one is it? Jdavi333 (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, he is. I have already modified the table of Religious life as well. Leo XIV is the first Augustinian friar. The others are Canon Regulars of diverse orders. Canon Regulars are considered a different type of Religious order, unlike the Augustinians who are Mendicant Friars. The confusion comes from Canon Regulars using the Rule of St. Augustine. This said, so do Dominicans. Are you we going to place Dominicas as Augustinians because they use the Rule? Obviously no, just like the table distinguishes between Benedictines and Cistercians, yet Cistercians also use the Rule of St. Benedict. --Coquidragon (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Canon Regulars: Honorius II & Innocent II (Canons Regular of the Lateran), Lucius II (Canons of the Basilica di San Frediano), Adrian IV (Canons Regular of Saint-Ruf), Eugene IV (Canons Regular of San Giorgio in Alga), Gregory VIII (Canons Regular of Prémontré-Premonstratensians)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Papa Leone XIV Vatican VAT (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Pope Leo XIV (Official Portrait crop version).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Il Presidente Sergio Mattarella con Sua Santità Leone XIV, in occasione della visita Ufficiale in Vaticano 1 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Before the 6th century, the portrait column for each pope is missing. Is this intentional, or should we consider adding portraits if available?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

"Is this intentional" Perhaps yes. A number of editors have been opposing the use of portraits and artistic depictions in articles when they do no date to the historical era of the figure being portrayed. I think the reasoning is that the depictions reflect the imagination or the cultural biases of the artist, instead of the actual physical features of the person depicted. I have come across many arguments of this nature in articles on figures from the Middle Ages. Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. I appreciate your help. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Why not use the same approach as List of Roman emperors, where non-contemporary depictions are used for emperors who don't have contemporary ones, but with a small note saying "Non-contemporary"? 🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱 (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense, and WP:OTHER says While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case. And the article you showed is a WP:FEATUREDARTICLE. I wonder what other editors think of this. Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not see why we need to have portraits if they are not contemporary or commonly associated with the subject in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say these aren't commonly associated with the subject in reliable sources. For example, I think Britannica is a reliable source, and they use a non contemporary portrait of Saint peter Saint Peter: the Apostle | History, Facts, & Feast Day | Britannica. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I strongly agree with @Surtsicna above. What value is there in using fanciful depictions of these people that we know for a fact have no basis in reality? St. Peter is I think a special case, as he has an extensive cultural footprint outside of the papacy itself. But for most of these we would be using artwork that is simultaneously of overall low quality and of no help in conveying what these figures actually look like. Jfruh (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

No, Britannica is not what we would cite as a source in our highest-quality articles. You will not find those cookie-cutter doodles in any academic publication specializing in the papacy or history of Rome. Surtsicna (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

May I ask, if that's the case, then why were they added to the list of roman emperors, and why did that become a featured article despite that? I mean they must've agreed that it was good for some reason, no? Wikieditor662 (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

If I had been an editor of that page, I would've strongly argued against it there as well. I find it interesting that you can't or won't make a positive case for it here beyond "they did it on this other page". What value do you think it provides to this page to give people a false sense of what these popes looked like? Jfruh (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Well it's not just that it's another page but that it's a featured one, which I think gives the decision credibility.

As for a reason, I don't think these are entirely false, as many of these are from the Middle Ages, and could've been inspired by their actual appearance, through either written description and / or oral tradition (and perhaps other ways). Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Could have been, but were not. And of course, very few of them are medieval anyway. Most date from the 19h century and are entirely empty of meaning or value: no one would know if you swapped the Benedict IX image with the Constantine image and it would have no effect. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Not always true. For Saint Peter, his lead image is from the 6-th century, right at the start of the Middle Ages. Others also have it from the Middle Ages (although perhaps not as early). And of course, we don't have to use these drawn images specifically. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Saint Peter is exceptional, as there is a consistent visual tradition that is pretty old, whether or not it has any historical basis. Only a few other popes, like Gregory the Great could be said to be the same (teerible image used here though). A few have more or less contemporary images, which of course are fine - Pope Paschal I, d. 824, is one of the earliest I can think of that is likely to reflect his actual appearance. But we long ago decided we didn't want purely 19th imaginings used. Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

So shouldn't we at the very least include the images for the exceptional popes or ones with contemporary (for their time), extant portraits? Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

That would require us to have an image column that would be about 80% empty, and that would either look bad or prompt editors to fill it with doodles. Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by look bad? And we could always find ways to prevent random random "doodles", by either posting a warning onto the page, or protecting it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

If you have an empty image column, that is fine.

There's not a real issue to it, it just highlights that there's not a portrait of that pope available. NerdAssembledy (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This page says Coelestinus, the pages for Celestine I, Celestine II, Celestine III, Celestine IV and Celestine V and the Vicipaedia page Index paparum say Caelestinus. I tried checking the Vatican website, but they don't list papal names in Latin. Which is correct? TWinwood (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

is there an explanation why the list in St. Peter has a gap from 199 to 460 AD? Should probably be noted in the image caption. — jonas (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It lists only those buried there. Allegedly, according to tradition... Rolluik (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Can someone please edit the first six or so portraits to have a portrait column? With the recent uploads of the frescoes of Zephyrinus, Innocent I, Lucius I, and Callixtus I theyres near-contmeporary images for some popes in the Roman era and furthermore the columns eouldbbe better for consistency. NerdAssembledy (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)