Talk:Cardinal protector
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cardinal protector article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Titular Churches
[edit]The section "Titular churches" does not belong in this article. Every cardinal (almost without exception) had a titular church, and thus it does not distinguish or refer to a "Cardinal Protector". It is just irrelevant filler, and should be deleted in its entirety.
--Vicedomino (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Vicedomino, it is uncited, so there is no evidence in the article to contradict you. Just googling around a bit, GCatholic identifies cardinal-protectors of titular churches so I would have to say this is verifiable and not mere filler. Elizium23 (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- My point was, that it does not belong here, since it has nothing to do with cardinal protectors. And, you are confusing verifiability (with which I am not concerned) with relevance. --Vicedomino (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Vicedomino, where is the definition of "cardinal-protector" established that excludes titular churches? I am not sure I understand why you wish to exclude it when the connection is clearly established by RS. Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- You really should read the material I have been posting in the article. The popes were dead set against Cardinal Protectors of emperors, kings, communities and other entities. They introduced partiality into the advising process. Cardinals of titular churches (the title "Protector" is a later one—I don't know when the custom began, but John Paul II made it a purely honorific one) have nothing to do with the kind of protector the article is talking about. Maybe (do you think?) that's why there is a separate article for Roman titular churches. --Vicedomino (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Seems like a distinction that you are contriving because I have seen no WP:RS to set them apart. The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions cardinal-protectors of churches, as incorporated in this article, so I am not sure why we would need to sift out the most common modern usage and remove it from this main article. Elizium23 (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Let's not make it personal. I did not "contrive" anything. If you look at the history of the page, the definition was already in the Lead before I began adding to the paragraph on political cardinal protectors (which was already there). I reiterate that a cardinal protector of a king or an emperor or a community (which is a personal arrangement between the cardinal and the other party, with the knowledge of the pope) is different from being the priest of a Roman city parish (honorary or otherwise) under the jurisdiction of the pope and appointed by him (and subject to transfer or promotion by him). As to reliable sources, try reading some of the bibliography cited in the article or listed in the bibliography section. Note (at least) the titles, which make the difference clear.--Vicedomino (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Seems like a distinction that you are contriving because I have seen no WP:RS to set them apart. The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions cardinal-protectors of churches, as incorporated in this article, so I am not sure why we would need to sift out the most common modern usage and remove it from this main article. Elizium23 (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- You really should read the material I have been posting in the article. The popes were dead set against Cardinal Protectors of emperors, kings, communities and other entities. They introduced partiality into the advising process. Cardinals of titular churches (the title "Protector" is a later one—I don't know when the custom began, but John Paul II made it a purely honorific one) have nothing to do with the kind of protector the article is talking about. Maybe (do you think?) that's why there is a separate article for Roman titular churches. --Vicedomino (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Vicedomino, where is the definition of "cardinal-protector" established that excludes titular churches? I am not sure I understand why you wish to exclude it when the connection is clearly established by RS. Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- My point was, that it does not belong here, since it has nothing to do with cardinal protectors. And, you are confusing verifiability (with which I am not concerned) with relevance. --Vicedomino (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Titular churches
[edit]The subsection "Titular churches" consists entirely of the following grammatically monstrous single sentence; "Every cardinal (except a Cardinal-Patriarch) is also, since the reign of John Paul II, called the Cardinal protector of the title (titular church s.s. for a Cardinal priest or Cardinal-deaconry for a Cardinal deacon) in or near Rome which he is assigned to, which gives him his title and benefits from his material support for upkeep or restoration, especially when he holds a rich see (usually as Archbishop)."
It is unreferenced, and ipso facto subject to deletion (wiki links do not count as references). But it is also potentially seriously misleading to the reader. Some cardinal-patriarchs DO hold titles in the diocese of Rome. E.g., when Angelo Scola was Patriarch of Venice, he was also Cardinal-Priest of Santi XII Apostolorum (2003–2011). The current Patriarch of Lisbon, Cardinal Manuel José Macário do Nascimento Clemente, is also Cardinal-Priest of S. Antonio in Campo Marzio.