Talk:Papal tiara

Farsight's comment

Farsight, I did a bulk revert of the IP's changes because of the statement "However, there is no evidence that any papal crown had this title emblazoned on it or that this was ever an official title of the Pope. The above document does not use this as a papal title." That's author POV, uncited, WP:OR, thus the revert. I specified that in the comment. Instead of undoing, it would have been better if you would have brought in the material from the other article as I agree that the blog quote is not in accordance with wikipedia policy. I didn't take the time to copy-edit the other article, which I will do now. Willfults (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I just find it suspect that you removed one unusable statement that you disagreed with, only to replace it with a statement you support, but still are willing to admit is improperly sourced. If you were interested in proper sourcing, shouldn't you have simply deleted the first unsourced statement, and not bothered to re-add the blog sourced statements?Farsight001 (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was lazy (I admit), I just clicked rollback instead of going to the other article. I've added the sourced material from the other article so I hope that satisfies. Thanks! Willfults (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Show me where this alleged title is located on a papal tiara. To say it was there and provide no evidence is POV. It is unsourced to claim that this is a papal title and that it is on the tiara. Show proof or the article will be revised to say so.97.112.218.67 (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is most certainly true that there is no such "title" on tiara, yet it looks like it is also true that some Protestants (and related groups) have claimed it is there. A sentence or two noting this fact (and, of course, the fact that no credible evidence for such claim has ever been found) might be worth adding to the article (although the current text seems to give undue weight to opinions of such Protestants (and related groups)).

Now about the last edit ([1])... The note "However, there is no evidence that any papal crown had this title emblazoned on it or that this was ever an official title of the Pope. The above document does not use this as a papal title." is unsourced, but I wouldn't say it is original research. It is possible to find different sources saying something like that. For example, just from "Catholic Answers": [2] (James Akin, "Changing the Sabbath", "This Rock", 1993, Vol. 4, Nr. 12), [3] ("Quick Questions", "This Rock", 1992, Vol. 3, Nr. 9), [4] (Karl Keating, "Into the Maw of the Cult", "This Rock", 1990, Vol. 1, Nr. 2), [5] (Tony Kovach "An Interactive Detective Story", "This Rock", 1996, Vol. 7, Nr. 7/8). We might use some of them, maybe adding qualification "Catholic apologists note that [...]".

On the other hand, what is the part "Various official documents from the Vatican do contain wording such as 'Adorandi Dei Filii Vicarius, et Procurator quibus numen aeternum summam Ecclesiae sanctae dedit'" doing in the article? What does it have to do with tiara? Even if it did, the documents cited do not say that "various official documents [...] contain the wording", and we would need a source that says just that. That would probably be some Protestant apologist who thinks it is "close enough". But, anyway, it does not really matter in this article, as even in that case it says nothing about the tiara itself. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I am going to do the easy part and remove the paragraph about wording from various documents. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem in section Vicarius Filii Dei Papal Tiara & Controversy

There are several problems in current page, such as: the first section was written in a unilateral way, not only examines the Protestant view, when worse, take advantage of it.

Secondly this page should not address the title Vicarius Filii Dei (which owns its own page), but more the relationship between the title and tiara Vicarius Filii Dei, something is not done. It is a fact first: the title was never found in tiara and some groups have abandoned that accusation. I plan to put it on the page as references.Kaiser Guilherme II (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. I see that Willfults has made a new version ([6]) which does seem to be a step in a right direction (compared with [7] and the like). And yet it is just "a step in a right direction" and not a "destination"...

First, the paragraph starts with "The title "Vicarius Filii Dei" became an even greater topic of controversy, [...]". Did it? Was there any controversy worth mentioning to start with? For that matter, is there some controversy now? I get an impression that there is no controversy: some Protestants strongly believe that such words are on the tiara, a handful of apologists from both sides argue, while the rest of the world doesn't care that much. That leads us to the last sentence "The point is debated both in Catholic and Protestant circles."... I do not see how the source given for such claim is supposed to support it.

Then there is another matter: the paragraph replaced some other text. That text performed a vital function: it expressed the other view. The view that all those claims about the writing on tiara are false - and would be irrelevant even if they were true. It is a majority view and it must be presented in any neutral account. Furthermore, according to WP:UNDUE it should probably be given far more weight than the contrary view.

Finally, the edit summary says that one source "[...] is a blog and is not WP:RS as previously agreed upon [...]". I guess it would be a good idea to link the discussion where it was agreed, for it does not seem to be on this talk page... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

One thing I found totally unacceptable in the editing of this section, because that paragraph was deleted:

Although it is relatively common mathematical methods involving names of several people to 666, considered pareidolia, for example, Bill Gates, Ellen G. White (founder of Seventh-day Adventist movement) and Jesus himself.

This quote is absolutely necessary for the impartiality of the page and to expose the Catholic point of view, anyway, she was taken off again, give preference to a Protestant point of view: a WIKIPEDIA MUST BE COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL AND SHOW ALL SIDES OF A DISCUSSION ESPECIALLY IN RELIGIOUS MATTERS, NOT DEFENDING Protestantism, so this quote, which is referenced, it will be re-included. Kaiser Guilherme II (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I deleted that bit. The reason is that this section is meant to be about the tiara. Getting too deep into the nonsense of how some people calculate things to add up to 666 and the general foolishness that results is for other articles where it is more directly relevant, particularly the article about the number (which I linked for background reading). Don't forget that the phrase has its own article too. We don't need to disclaim that the moon is not made of green cheese every time we mention the moon in passing. That said, I won't delete it again if you really think it is important. What I would like you to do is to try to rephrase it in a way that actually makes some sense because at the moment it is pretty much incoherent. Maybe we could say something like "This is just one of many attempts to link various individuals to the antichrist by means of Gematria and other numerological methods." I really don't think we need to mention any examples by name. We don't need to play it for lolz. It is what it is. Any sensible person can see that it is just a silly game without us needing to point this out. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, so, I guess we should replace it with some sentence like "Catholic apologists generally note that "Vicarius Filii Dei" is not an official papal title, and that there is no evidence about tiara having such inscription.". We could probably cite it to [8] (Patrick Madrid, "Pope Fiction", "Envoy", Vol. 2.2, March-April 1998) and [9] (Patrick Madrid, "More Vicarius Thrills", "Envoy", Vol. 2.5, September-October 1998).

Now the problem with that is obvious: the first paragraph is written as if it was an introduction and doesn't even mention the tiara until the very end... Probably we can replace it with something like "Some Protestants, especially Seventh Day Adventists, claim that papal tiaras have an inscription "Vicarius Filii Dei" (that, according to them, is a Pope's title), which they consider to be the mark of Antichrist.". We could cite it to the same two articles.

The rest of the section could probably be deleted. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE two sentences should probably be sufficient for such a fringe theory (if there should be a mention at all).

So, would there be any objections to such approach? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The user Willfults reverted back to my editing ALREADY BEEN BASED HERE, with the chutzpah to say that was not important. Of course, although it is not important to quote REFERENCED and ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL FOR THE FAIRNESS OF THE SECTION, the service of Our Sunday Visitor that is not even on the tiara, just more about the title, apparently is super important. I repeat: This assertion is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE FAIRNESS OF THE PAGE, AND IF OTHERWISE IT is omitted, it would violate a basic principle ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THAT, so I'll reinclude the page and if arbitrarily reversed again, it'll reinclude many times as necessary. Kaiser Guilherme II (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, calm down. Yes, Willfults does not seem to be very communicative. Yes, his writings do not seem to be very neutral. But it doesn't mean that it is a good idea to get angry. Now, if reverts would continue, it would probably be a good idea to ask for outside help (I've been thinking about Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard). But before we do that, we might as well try to write that section neutrally (Who knows? Maybe that will be sufficient?).

Thus, would you agree to have the section's text replaced with something like this (proposed in [10]): "Some Protestants, especially Seventh Day Adventists, claim that papal tiaras have an inscription "Vicarius Filii Dei" (that, according to them, is a Pope's title), which they associate with the number of the Beast. Catholic apologists generally note that "Vicarius Filii Dei" is not an official papal title, and that there is no evidence about tiara having such inscription."? Now, we could add something like "[...] and that the same technique can be used to associate, for example, the name of Ellen Gould White (founder of Seventh Day Adventists) with the number of the Beast". But is it really about tiara? Wouldn't it be enough to have a link to the articles "Vicarius Filii Dei" and "Number of the Beast" leaving this explanation there? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I shortened the section ([11]) as the no objections were given and as edits [12] had to be reverted in some way anyway... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

References

File:Johnxxiii-color-tiara-sm.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Johnxxiii-color-tiara-sm.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Editor "LoveforMary"

I have had to revert the edits by LoveforMary on 2 February for multiple reasons. These include but are not limited to:

1. The description of the papal tiara as a three-tiered jewelled crown. It wasn't always three-tiered: historically, the number of tiers varied; it wasn't always adorned even with one crown; it wasn't always jewelled.
2. The indication that it was by donning it that popes "canonically" accepted their role as vicar of Jesus Christ. The acceptance of their role took place some days earlier in the conclave, before the announcement: "Habemus Papam".
3. The placing in the lead, as if it were one of the most important elements, of an unfounded claim that one or more papal tiaras had a certain inscription on it, accompanying this with a personal unsourced explanation of the origin of this by no means common idea.
4. Unnecessary capitalization contrary to Wikipedia rules (see MOS:CAPS and WP:DOCTCAPS).
5. The limiting to Vatican City of the appearance of the tiara and crossed keys on buildings. Esoglou (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks for pointing those out. LoveforMary (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

You still have not remedied items 2, 3 and 4 above. Even when there was a coronation ceremony, it was within the conclave that elected them that the popes accepted their role as vicars of Christ. They were and knew they were vicars of Christ from the moment of their acceptance of election, without having to wait for a coronation. The coronation added nothing to their powers or duties.

Here are more:

1. Reference to a "present" form. No longer in use, it has no present form. It has had several historical forms. If it were revived, who knows how many tiers it would have?
2. Alleging a Byzantine origin of the tiara is unsourced. The sources cited actually indicate the contrary.
3. List of papal tiaras in existence does not show that various types of papal tiaras have been used "throughout history": they are all relatively recent, the oldest being of the late 16th century and none of the others being older than 1800; and they are all of the one triple-tier type. History did not begin in 1572. Esoglou (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I actually am very uncomfortable to have added the Byzantine or Persian origin since it sounds very pagan and there is no cited reference either. That line came from an earlier text before I made my first edit to the article. Removed everything else which you noted and revised the "present" form into "recent form". Revised the history to the 1572. Didn't know this, obviously you do. Check it out. thx for anything else, you make the addendums. i dont have any more info on this topic. LoveforMary (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

Some of the above remained unattended to. If you are unsure of something such as the alleged Byzantine or Persian origin, don't insist on putting it in. An article on the papal tiara is not the place to go into details of papal coronation, which has its own article. Still less is the lead of an article on something other than papal coronation the place to go into details about papal coronations. "Is continued to be used" is not good English. Don't keep insisting that the papal tiara is used on the papal tiara, which is what you say when you say it is used on papal regalia, rather than just insignia, as a symbol of the papacy ... Esoglou (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but your intro sentence is so long, who can read that sentence and seriously understand it at first glance? I wish you could break it down into simplicity so it can be easily defined in the first sentence, then followed by whatever historical description you have of the tiara. LoveforMary (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

Thanks for the good suggestion. Esoglou (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: moved to Papal tiara. Favonian (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Papal Tiara → Papal tiara – MOS:CAPS. Not a proper noun. Esoglou (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Numerous sources use the phrase "papal tiaras". ("Adrian...was accused after his death of hoarding two papal tiaras."[13]) If you can have more than one, it is not a proper noun. Kauffner (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Per nominator. Elizium23 (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Silly Overt Vandalism

1. Related_uses

"For tiaras unrelated to the papacy, see Tiara used to prove that he is the DEVIL on earth and has been known to be the most evel prson the have ever lived. the pope was also Hiterls personal advisor and is where Hitler got the ideas of world domination and race supiriority."

I hope this qualifies as vandalism. I'll take the liberty of deleting it. At the very least, it lacks a citation :)

Edit: I can't manage to find where in the source the slander is placed, and I suspect it is locked away in some template. IDK. Could some experienced editor step up and fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.83.149 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It was leftover in the cache from some reverted vandalism. I performed a null edit to remove it completely. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Elizium23 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Papal Miter is redirecting to this page

Could someone please fix it? It should definitely redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitre instead. Thanks. 2602:306:32D3:EF0:CC42:68E2:2FE:B2E0 (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. A mitre is not a tiara. Esoglou (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Triple tiara

An IP editor is repeatedly inserting his/her view that it is incorrect to call the three-tiered papal tiara a triple tiara. The IP editor advances arguments such as "'tiara' in this case is not a synonym for any of the individual crowns, circlets or diadems but is the name of the entire headdress". A tiara is a tiara whether the headdress has three crowns, two, one or even none. A triple tiara is a tiara with three component elements. Like the triple jump. Like the triple point of a substance is the point of temperature and pressure at which the three phases (gas, liquid, and solid) of that substance coexist in thermodynamic equilibrium. Like the Triple Entente, which was an alliance between three countries.

Unsourced arguments advanced by a Wikipedia editor are not grounds for making a statement in Wikipedia. Wikipedia accepts only what is stated in a reliable published source. Read WP:OR. It seems arrogant, on the basis of a Wikipedia editor's unsourced personal opinion, to tell the authors of the reliable sources that call the triregnum a triple tiara (only three examples of such sources are given) that they, not the Wikipedia editor, are wrong. Esoglou (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree and have just reverted the IP. They need to understand that they (a) need a source for the statement that it is erroneous and (b) they need to join the talk page discussion to gain consensus. FWIW, I think it is quite possible that "triple tiara" is loose use, but a source still needs to be found to confirm that. DeCausa (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Papal tiara. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.home.earthlink.net/~herald97/guyselvester/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Tiara of St. Sylvester

This section has a quotation that's so large as to verge on plagiarism. It really needs to be cut down. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Papal tiara. 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/20120827125632/http://www.truecatholic.us/nop/p6tiara.htm to http://www.truecatholic.us/nop/p6tiara.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Liturgical abandonment of the tiara

The liturgical abandonment of the tiara has been sourced by this Vatican document that affirms "Use of the Tiara, a ritual during solemn ceremonies, was abandoned during the Papacy of Paul VI."

Concerning John Paul II, an official source of the tiara's abandonment is the apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, which at the number 92 reads: "After the solemn ceremony of the inauguration of the Pontificate and within an appropriate time, the Pope will take possession of the Patriarchal Archbasilica of the Lateran, according to the prescribed ritual." This gives a WP:reliable source to the previous sentence of the WP article, which read: "His immediate successor, Pope John Paul I, decided against a coronation, replacing it with an "inauguration". No sources were provided. The Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli links the apostolic constitution to the fact that the following popes could avoid tha pontifical incoronation rite with the Papal Tiara (source: A. Tornielli, A tiara for every Pope).

Possibly, the liturgical abandonment was stated in older documents of the Wojtyla's papacy. However, further informations can be found in this senior seminar thesis, supervisioned by professors Elisheva Carlebach Jofen and Lien-Hang Nguyen, but it doesn't mention neither the Universi Dominici Gregis nor other apostolic constitutions. Therefore, the purpoted equation "Universi Dominici Gregis"=liturgical abandonment of the tiara has to be corroborated with additional sources, defining what is the liturgy related to the "ceremony of the inauguration of the Pontificate" (n. 92).

Lastly, it was also added the gift of the German businessman Dieter Filippi of a special tiara to the then Pope Benedict XVI, sourced in the article of A. Tornielli, A ogni Papa la sua tiara, and in another article of the same journal whose digital copy is available in the website liturgix.org (archived June 25, 2016). Perhaps, I wasn't able to find the related translation from Italian into English. I would like also to apologize for the lenght of this topic, but there were some aspects to be pointed out.

The Exorcism of Saint Michael Against Satan and the Apostate Angels prophetizes the enthronment of Satan in the Apostolic See, a truth of faith which deals with the abandonment of the papal tiara as a possible sign of times. Regards, Theologian81sp

References

coat of arms missing tiara

Are you sure? The grey shape split into three looks like a simplified representation of the tiara and is placed in the identical place. 109.249.181.62 (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)