Talk:Pope Leo I

---

First Pope

A latin Patriarch of Rome granted himself the title Pope, and made himself infallible.

The Patriarch (or Pope) of Rome was declared by Constantinople, and therefore several Patriarchs of Rome were Greek early on.

Initially ( when Byzantium was fighting back and forth to protect Rome from the barbarians ) The Patriarch of Rome was with the other 4 Patriarchs of the empire. Patriarch of Constantinople, etc.

Pope_John_VII, John VII was the last Greek Patriarch (and I believe the final legitimate Christian reign in Rome) in 707.

Also see, Byzantine_captivity.

Pope_Leo_IX caused the gap between East and West by trying to make himself the head of all churches, when he was not.

By making the papacy into a virtual government, and not doing things the orthodox way the Papal States damned themselves.

Bishops and Patriarchs are very similiar, Patriarchs are Autocephalous (Bishops that report to no higher Bishop or church position).

The title means nothing, it became a meaning later on to identify the broken Christian head of Rome.. The leader of which declared himself infallible. Divius (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Pope??

He was a Patriarch of the Roman church, that was allied to Constantinople.

There was no seperate "Roman" "Catholic" Church ( Western Christianity ) until much later. Divius (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

first pope?

First pope? This question needs clarification. While the official Roman Catholic position is that St. Peter was the first pope, I also thought that there were other bishops termed "popes" in the first few centuries before Leo I (I found at least 43 of them in a quick search). So clarification is needed on those who claim Leo as the "first Pope." Is he the "first pope" in the modern sense of the Papacy? Is he the first one who referred to himself with the title? Or some other bit of info? It would help explain the "first" distinction with some sources that make and support this claim.

---

User:205.188.116.138 put in this unwikified version.

Good grief. The article doesn't claim that he was the first pope; it says he was the first pope to be named "the great" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.32.129 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The article also states that Leo was first pope buried in St. Peters. Well, St. Peter is buried under St. Peters, and St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, which is the Pope. So some rewording is probably in order. Democrat moderators, neither edit my reply nor send me a message like you do to me on other posts, because it is obvious that the talk page is used as a discussion board, and quit being prejudiced. 98.181.50.194 (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

leo the great

Pope Sixtus III died, i wonder why? (August 11, 540), and Leo was unanimously elected by the people to succeed him. On September 29 he entered upon a pontificate which was to be epoch-making for the centralization of the government of the Church.

Manicheans fleeing before the Vandals had come to Rome in 439 and secretly organized there; Leo learned of this around 443, and proceeded against them by holding a public debate with their representatives, burning their books, and warning the Roman Christians against them. His efforts led to the edict of Valentinian III against them (June 19, 445).

Feeling that his dominant idea of the Roman universal monarchy was threatened, Leo appealed to the civil power for support, and obtained from Valentinian III the famous decree of June 6, 445, which recognized the primacy of the bishop of Rome based on the merits of Peter, the dignity of the city, and the Nicene Creed (in their interpolated form); ordained that any opposition to his rulings, which were to have the force of law, should be treated as treason; and provided for the forcible extradition by provincial governors of anyone who refused to answer a summons to Rome.

The approaching collapse of the Western Empire gave Leo a further opportunity to appear as the representative of lawful authority. When Attila invaded Italy in 452 and threatened Rome, it was Leo who, with two high civil functionaries, went to meet him, and so impressed him that he withdrew -- at least according to Prosper of Aquitaine,

restore

The previous, more detailed, version is being restored. May merge the two versions later .... feel free to jump in !  :-)

Atilla the Hun

Just want to add my 2 cents. The Atilla The Hun story is not historically proven. It's a story told by the church, but there are other theories why the huns pulled back. Some historians postulate that illness was the reason, for instance. I wouldn't change it myself (right now) as I have more researching to do on it, but if anyone has good sources it would, I believe, be good for the article to present all views, or as many as are well backed up. --jenlight 13:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I modified it to reflect the ambiguity, while also fleshing out some alternative reasons. Generally, most sources I've read view the traditional account of Leo morally convincing Attila to grant mercy as quaint and unrealistic. Looking at it in terms of Realpolitik, there are much more persuasive interpretations behind Attila's decision (especially considering Attila's previous behavior). The myth that pope Leo himself saved Rome is likely a bit naive, although it makes for a powerful story--which is why it still gets told like that. At most Leo negotiated a deal and bought Attila off via shrewd diplomacy, not via morality appeals. 69.169.130.131 23:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Great addition. Do you have any recommended sources for someone who wants to follow up on some of these alternative theories? -- Stbalbach 14:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Leo definately did meet Attila the Hun outside Rome. This is mentioned in one contemporary chronicle - that of Prosper - and is mentioned in the Liber Pontificalis (which dates from the 530s/40s). This is not some fictionalised myth.

However, Leo was just one member of an embassy featuring three other high-profile citizens of Rome, one of whom (the senator Trigetius), already had a track record of negotiating with barbarians, the idea that Leo was the protagonist behind the embassy, and its most significant member, is later ecclesiastical myth making.

Whether or not the embassy was the real reason for Attila's change of direction, is as has already been mentioned, highly debated. But that it actually happened, is not really in doubt.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.49.118 (talk • contribs) January 15 2007.

I am going to change the article so it says he met attila the hun outside of rome, rather than persuaded him to leave rome untouched. the current statement is POV, and more to the point simply untrue - I cant think of a single current historian who places any weight upon leo's meeting with attila at all. --Snozzbert12 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, guys, I did my best to improve the section about Attila and Leo. I may add some additional sources later. Romanus451 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

A neutrality warning should be placed on the article. It must have been taken from an early Catholic Encyclopedia. Johnor 11:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The antepenultimate paragraph of the article states:

Through the see of Peter, Rome has become the capital of the world in a wider sense than before. For this reason, when the earth was divided among the apostles, Rome was reserved to Peter, that here, at the very center, the decisive triumph might be won over the earthly wisdom of philosophy and the power of the demons; and thus from the head the light of truth streams out through the whole body.

If that paragraph is a summary of St. Leo's teaching, it should be cited as such; otherwise, it gives the imprssion of being non-NPOV. MishaPan 21:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am tagging the section "Zeal for Orthodoxy", it seems to require the most attention. I find it to be the most biased perspective within the article and, thus, the one that requires a tag most of all. I'm also putting another tag for the whole article (one that is less demanding because the rest of it may not require as much work). Also, Pope (St.) Dioscorus is made to look like somebody under rule of the catholic Pope. ROME IS NOT THE CAPITAL OF THE WORLD IN THE EYES OF OTHERS. As a Copt, I'm shocked, because the other (Coptic/Non-Chalcedonian) point-of-view is completely ignored. And if anyone has any objections, then look at what others said about the tag being required. It looks like the majorty is good with a tag, but there can still be discussion on which tag is most appropriate. "Zeal for Orthodoxy" could be renamed "Controversy" or have sub-sections with possibly "Zeal for Latin Orthodoxy" (in order to reduce confusion with Oriental & Eastern Orthodoxy). Also, the Oriental Orthodox (I know this because I am one) insist that St. Dioscorus was Orthodox in teaching and that he did adopt Pope St. Cyril's teachings (1: St. Dioscorus was Cyril's disciple and personal secretary; 2: I put several sources on Talk:Dioscorus of Alexandria#Oriental Orthodox Are Not Heretics explaining the Oriental Orthodox point-of-view). We can incorporate these & other sources to combine with other POVs to make it proper encyclopedic content (as in "NPOV"). Feel free to give me any suggestions. ~ Troy 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Roman Supremacy has so much more to do with Rome trying to maintain it's control of the falling Western Empire and to retain Latin cultural influence than it has anything to do with reality. Roman (Latin) Nationalism played a huge role in the identity of Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Croats, Austrians, Italians (especially), Spaniards, Portuguese, French, the Maltese, and the Irish (the last to a lesser degree since their Catholicism is mostly due to their hatred of the English) even the Lebanese Maronites where converted by the Franks during the Crusades and rapidly Latinized. I've listed most of the Catholic European groups (the Czechs are principly Atheist, I skipped the Slovaks and Slovenes), and the spread of Catholicism in the rest of the world closely matches the geographical cultural sphere of these Romanized ethnic groups especially the Spaniards, Portuguese, and to a lesser degree the French (all Romance speaking). The exceptions are the Northern United States and the United Kingdom, influenced by the Poles, Irish, Croats (US), and Italians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.162.129 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody please look into re-writing some of these sections that carry with it polemics of Orthodox / Coptic Christians vs. Roman Catholics? In other words, could someone please attempt to have the article reflect the understanding of the Christian church at the time of Leo? (...) So yes, it's a good idea to make sure this artcile doesn't reflect too much of a later Roman Catholic conception of the papacy, (...). Chrisgaffrey (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Going overboard with the NPOV tags, perhaps?

I can see the reasons for the NPOV tags, and I can understand different sections being tagged as NPOV, but is it REALLY NECCESSARY to stick "Neutrality Disputed" after every single sentence? It seems both slighly overzealous and not a little bit childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.44.11 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, many of the "neutrality disputed" tags do not refer to POV issues--for example, how can the neutrality of the statement on John Cassian's dedication to Leo be disputed? Someone needs to calm down. And someone needs to clean this up.Kit1066 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No kidding, there's what, twenty of them? I'll just add a neutrality disputed tag at the top.--The Dominator (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless an article on popes confines itself to recording the different POV's, I don't see how any article on an alleged pope can be NPOV. Secularists, Protestants, Romanists, Eastern Orthodox, and nondenominational Christians are not going to agree on the subject of popes. (EnochBethany (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC))

Tome to Flavian

There should maybe be a separate entry on Leo's Tome to Flavian, which discusses complex christological issues that are still relevant today in the context of the modern ecumenical movement. ADM (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I came here hoping for a quick résumé of the contents of the Tome, but the article says nothing beyond the fact that the Tome follows Augustine (in what specifics?). It would be great if someone could flesh this out, or indeed make a separate article of it. Vilĉjo (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2011 (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 not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Pope Leo I → Leo the Great — Relisted for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

More common name. It is acceptable to make Leo, an early pope, an exception to the convention guarding consistency among popes. Srnec (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Pope Leo the Great may avoid ambiguity with Emperor Leo I. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there really ambiguity? I have never heard the emperor called "Leo the Great". Srnec (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I would not say that "Pope Leo the Great" is an improvement on the current title if "Leo the Great" would be ambiguous. Srnec (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • He is in Greek; it's not a value judgment - the Greeks used Great and Lesser to do the work of our I and II. How extensively this has passed into English, I do not know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I meant that I have not seen this pass into English. Srnec (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would like to see some actual evidence that "Leo the Great" is more common than "Leo I". Both are obviously quite common, and I see no reason to prefer the less standard form. john k (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Leo the Great" as the most common name for the article subject? That needs to be demonstrated rather than asserted. Also opposed for the reason of ambiguity with other rulers named Leo also given the title "Great". patsw (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2009 (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.

Democratic Catholic?

"...Pope Sixtus III died (August 11, 440), and Leo was unanimously elected by the people to succeed him."

What People? I find it highly dubious that a unanimous election took place. "The people" isn't an expression you can throw around randomly. The Catholic Church, especially in the 5th century, didn't give a hoot for "the people". The way that he rose to power was probably through power grabs and maneuvering of some sort.

Can anyone support or explain this phrase? Otherwise it should be "Leo succeeded him" without explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.157 (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Roman people. This was pretty common in the early days. If he was involved with "power grabs and maneuvering of some sort" (and what politician isn't?) it would have been in the context of an election. The Western Church of the 5th century was not the organized, bureaucratic institution that the current Roman Catholic Church is today. 69.14.124.47 (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Church"

Above a URL posted:

"Just want to add my 2 cents. The Atilla The Hun story is not historically proven. It's a story told by the church, but there are other theories why the huns pulled back."

What does "the church" mean? The Church is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ; composed of all who genuinely trust the Lord Jesus as savior, from Pentecost (c. 33 AD) to the Rapture (1 Th 4:17). All who trust Christ as savior are baptized by the Holy Spirit into His Body, the Church (1 Cor 12:13). I strongly object to someone using the term "church" to refer to the papal system ("Roman Catholic Church"). The NT never uses "church" for a denomination. The Church, as a generalization, does not tell stories by Atilla. Now if you mean that the papal system tells this story, then that should be the language, not "church." (BTW Roman & Catholic don't belong together, since Rome is one city and catholic refers to the kata hol ic church, the "according to the whole ish" church, i;e;, the universal Church, the Body of Christ, which the papal system is not. Instead of saying "a story told by the church," the statement should read, "a story recorded by certain papists."(EnochBethany (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC))

You're right that Roman and Catholic don't belong together, which is why "Roman" is not part of the Catholic Church's name. It was added by protestants during the reformation as an insult for the very reason you give that they do not go together - it implied non-universality. Catholics went and ran with it, and the Latin rite at least, has little objection to its use today, but it is still not part of the Church's name.

As for your definition of "the Church", many people would beg to differ with your interpretation. Either way, the context of the article makes clear what is meant in this case by "the Church". As for use of the word "papist", that will never find its way into the article. You seem to be unaware, but words like papist, romish, and popish are severely derogatory terms to Catholics. The comparative analogy is to the N-word. So unless the article is about those particular words or if those words are used in a quote, no article on wikipedia should be using them.Farsight001 (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If you object to papist, that does NOT justify your use of The Church to refer to a Roman sect. Find a neutral term then, Roman Institution or whatever. What can you use that is neutral? Calling that denomination The Church is plain wrong, regardless of contexts. And it is an attempt to force the RCC POV on others. (EnochBethany (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC))

NPOV & No Citation

The undocumented claim is made at the start of this article that Leo was pope of the Christian Church. There is no documentation for this claim given, no footnote. And such a statement cannot be NPOV. This is RCC POV. If we accept the Bible as the defining document of the Christian Church, as many do, then there are no popes in the Church at all, for none are ever mentioned in the Bible. Even if you erroneously claim that the Church was founded on Peter, Mat 16 says nothing about any office of "pope" or any continual line of Peters. A case could be made that in fact Leo was the first pope of the RCC and that no one before him acted as pope. Of course you could even argue that since the bishop of Rome was not declared infallible until the 1800's, the papacy is quite recent in origin. At any rate, no consensus is possible on an issue over which wars have been fought. And no secondary source deemed reliable both by papists and antipapists can be cited to support this statement that I removed. (EnochBethany (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC))

You may need to reacquaint yourself with WP:BLUE and WP:VALID.

The modern papacy is one thing, but in modern English "pope" is synonymous with "bishop of Rome". Click and see. And yet you seem to have no problem with leaving Leo uncited with the latter office.

The problem for you is that as much as modern Christianity is sometimes a personal mystical experience or occasionally gives esoteric meanings to the word "church", the actual church is an organization with a very old history and Leo was part of it. Calling it the "Roman Catholic Church" is anachronistic; people fought over who counted as the orthodox hierarchy but it was part of the Roman state and there were set positions within it. The namespace is "Pope Leo I" and his job was "pope", along with "bishop of Rome". WP:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

Protip: Don't use the word "papist" (let alone "antipapist") unironically and expect to be taken seriously. — LlywelynII 22:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Easter reform

The Annales Cambriae record Leo changing the dating for Easter. If true, should be a mention somewhere. — LlywelynII 22:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Papal article consistency

Discussion was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2013#Papal article consistency Elizium23 (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It does not say there that the lead sentence must be formulated as "Pope Peter was Pope". Quite the opposite, in fact – point 2 addresses the issue of redundancy. Surtsicna (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Saint vs. St.

I'm bringing this up because when I'd edit the title Saint before a name, to St. I get reverted. Why spell out Saint rather than put St.? It seems like it should say St. Leo the Great, rather than Saint Leo the Great. When there's a doctor, you don't write Doctor Frasier Crane. You write the short form, such as Dr. Sigmund Freud. NapoleonX (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Image of Pope Leo

Was looking through view history, saw that someone (Pipsally) had removed the image of Pope Leo twice, looked through the profile a sec. Seems that they deleted several images from several articles regarding Popes on March 29-30, disregarding them as "fanciful images". I think that the depictions of the Popes are quite important in a historical sense. It allows readers to get an image of the specific Pope in their head, rather than having a disembodied entity in their place. By having an artistic depiction, it can speed up the learning process to a degree. But, overall, I think that the most important reason for the image is that it makes the page look better, I mean, look at that beard! 119.18.3.165 (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. It puts an image in people's minds. The problem is that these images are completely made up. The deletions aren't contemporary but were centuries, indeed millennia after the lives of those they purport to show.Pipsally (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

There is usually a good reason for most things. What if it's made up? What does that matter to you? I understand that they aren't contemporary, and that can have an effect on accuracy, but who really cares? I reckon that the person who originally added this image years ago wanted for people to appreciate what an artist thought a great man from a bygone era looked like. Regardless of the artwork being conceived 1200 years after the life of Pope Leo, it attempts to show the view of so many people at that specific time. So, it is important in its own special way. It shows how, even then, a full millennium later, people had enough respect to depict him in an artwork. It doesn't matter if it is made up, regardless of time difference, it shows the feelings of those who read and learnt about Leo. I think that showing this image is a perfectly good idea, as it encourages the people of today to learn and read about Pope Leo in the same way that those in the past did. It gives them solace in knowing that they aren't alone in adoration for such a figure. TL:DR I think that displaying this image is perfectly fine, as it encourages people to be passionate in learning history, perhaps passionate enough to produce artworks of a similar calibre, be it in text or image form.119.18.0.92 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I've heard of symbolism. Wikipedia isn't the place for it. We could fill Wikipedia with all sorts of inspirational images, but if they're not accurately depicting the subject of the article then they're not adding value. This is an imaginary depiction with no basis in fact. Pipsally (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I reckon, if you're going to remove papal depictions for that one reason, you should remove depictions of several other figures such as Jesus, whose article image dates to 500 years following his death, and Moses, whose article image dates from 2 millennia following his time. Your argument that the images being completely made up, and therefore historically worthless when depicting people from centuries to millennia before seems to only focus on Popes, and not any other figure in history.119.18.3.165 (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the wordings of IP above, I do think there is a value in including lead images, even those which are not contemporary with the topic in question. The page for Belisarius depicts a purported depiction of him, and Attila the Hun's lead image is taken from a 17th-century depiction. There are many examples of this all over this wiki, especially from late antiquity/early middle ages. The policy at MOS:LEADIMAGE suggests that this is fine — 'Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works'. Leo's Britannica: page uses a tenth-century depiction — other 'high-quality reference works' utilise non-contemporaneous imagery. The renaissance art-style is reminiscent of the Western Catholic and Roman revival, and so I think that this portrait of Leo in this context is perfectly fine and in line with MOS:LEADIMAGE. NestledNest (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I can see this rationale up to a point but equally this image is a generic neoclassical representation of a bearded old man in papal regalia of that period. You could write any 1st millennia popes name under it, so I think it's arguable whether it "illustrates the topic specifically"Pipsally (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

In that same sense, we could dismiss a painting of Christopher Columbus as 'a Portuguese man from the fifteenth century wearing contemporaneous clothing', or dismiss a bust of Tiberius as 'another first-century Roman nobleman'. In both cases, images can be useful in confirming the identity of the individual in question. Ultimately, if we wanted to remove all 'generic' and 'non-specific' lead images, we could remove the lead images for Pericles (Roman copy of 'generic' strategoi bust), Tacitus (modern statue of 'generic' Roman man), or Alcibiades (non-contemporary painting of 'generic' Greek fellow). I could just as easily label them as Themistocles, Cassius Dio, and Plato. In regards to the specificity of the art, this depiction of Leo also incorporates unique regalia (such as the proto-papal tiara — not in any contemporary art until the 6th century). It's not just 'any first millennia Pope' — the art indicates that it's well after early Christianity, but before the fashions of the high middle ages. With this in mind; I believe that this art is specific, that it is distinct, and that it reflects the sort of art a 'high-quality reference work' would use. NestledNest (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Just writing this update to inquire into whether if any objections have been raised. If there are no further points of contention, I will reinstate the Francisco Herrera portrait of Pope Leo I with regards to the above reasoning. NestledNest (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

No further objection in this case from me.Pipsally (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

References