Disputatio:Papa

"Papa . . . munus tenet regendae universae ecclesiae."

Needless to say, that assertion exhibits a POV. Who will fix it? and how? On this point, en: says: " The Pope . . . is the Bishop of Rome, the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church[3] and head of state of Vatican City." IacobusAmor 15:21, 26 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

"Papa . . . est successor . . . Sancti Petri."

POV quoque. Compare en: "Faith communities which recognize Apostolic Succession acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as successor of St Peter." IacobusAmor 15:30, 26 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Eposucus Romanus?

Shouldn't it be "Eposcus Romae". His Title is "Bishop of Rome" not "Roman Bishop".Aulus Sergius Sulla 20:38, 15 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

In the classical language, adjectives seem to be preferred for phrases having this syntax. IIRC, one of the standard grammars specifically implies that, for the identically constructed phrase 'citizen of Rome', civis Romae is a horrible, horrible blunder for civis Romanus. IacobusAmor 17:24, 16 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Iacobus, although to be fair we have to admit that many people do use this kind of expression. "Episcopus Romae" doesn't get so many Google hits as "Episcopus Romanus", but it still gets a fair few, including some reputable texts.

Incidentally, Aulus, English wouldn't be the starting-point here and needn't matter much to us. His title is "Bishop of Rome" in English because that's a translation that someone fixed on ... because it sounded good in English. The title started out in Latin, so the real task is to find early sources in Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:39, 16 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

Thans for clarifying. Aulus Sergius Sulla 19:52, 16 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

Patriarcha Occidentis

Versio latina brevis infera. I am referring to my edit from 17:45, 10 Aprilis 2024 and the imediate revert 17:45, 10 Aprilis 2024 by @AramilFeraxa. The reasons given for the revert are: "unnecessary links or spam". That is, however, not the case. I did, as anybody can see, merely actualize the article and quoted a trustworthy source, the Austrain national public broadcaster. The article contained information about the omission of the title by Benedictus XVI, I then added the recent resumption of the title by Franciscus. I chose to quote the ORF because it was quoted by another trustworty source and therefore appeared to be an early, if not the original, source. The fact is now being reported by numerous sources. In trying to find a latin source I checked the website of the Sala Stampa della Santa Sede, however unsuccessfully. The fact that the revert occured extremely quickly and that the reverter does not mention latin skills in his Babel leads me to suspect that the revert only happened by mistake. If I am not soon given otherwiese reasoned notice, I will therefore revert the revert.

Aramilferexa abrogavit recensionem mei sine iure. Errorem esse suspicio. Si hanc suspicionem mei non cum causis contradixerit cite, abrogationem sui abrogabo. Maximilian Birke (disputatio) 22:12, 10 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, @Maximilian Birke:. Your edit seems OK to me, so I have restored it. If you added the link to many wikis at the same time (I haven't checked), this would have looked like spamming, and that may be the reason why it was reverted. If you would like to comment, @AramilFeraxa:, please do so. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:45, 11 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)