Jump to content

Talk:Holy See/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Holy See. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Jurisdiction of the Holy See

I am not sure how to best address this issue, but "Jurisdiction = Vatican City..." seams incorrect, or at least incomplete. "Jurisdiction" does not quite describe the relationship that the Holy See has with Vatican City, per se. The Holy See is the symbolic seat of the Pope, who has jurisdiction over Catholics within the immediate Diocese of Rome, as well as all over the world (the conflicting definition of jurisdiction was cause minor confusion in another discussion). The Vatican is a territory administered by the Holy See, perhaps, maybe? I do not quite know how to portray this on the template. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I would say that here, in order to write something having sense, we would need an handbook of Canonical law. Until then, I would leave the template as it is, since he was written by an user who was very knowledgeable about this subject. Alex2006 (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks okay to me.
The jurisdiction is somewhat similar (certainly NOT identical) to an archbishop who administers to his diocese but technically is metropolitan of a bunch of other dioceses. His usual "control" over the dioceses is minimal, but he tries to appoint (subject to Rome) bishops to those dioceses, when a see becomes vacant.
Nor can a Pope tell a bishop what to do. He can remove and replace him, but that is about it. The "vast" control that people imagine a pope to have is not really born out in actual practice. The pope is still trying to implement Vatican II! Student7 (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Holy See. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Pentarchy?

What are the arguments for and against of including the Template:Pentarchy in the footer of this article, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Holy See. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Holy See. 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:

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) 07:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipediatrists, how do you do?

I have just modified one external link on Holy See. 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:

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) 12:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sancta Sedes v. Sanctus Sedes

I'm not sure but Sancta seems to be the feminine and Sanctus is the neuter. Would it be more appropriate to say Sanctus Sedes when referring to the Holy See? Could use a quick Latin lesson here if anyone knows the difference. Bodding (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

'Sedes' is feminine, so 'Sancta Sedes' is correct. BTW, 'Sanctus' is masculine, neuter is 'Sanctum'. Vale :-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Much appreciated. Bodding (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Holy See

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Holy See's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "factbook":

  • From Denmark: "Denmark". The World Factbook. CIA. 19 January 2012. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
  • From Vatican City: "Holy See (Vatican City)". CIA—The World Factbook.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Not to be confused

The thing says not to be confused with the vatican city. But the flag and the capital are the exact same. Please explain Whytho00 (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

There seems to be no consensus for the recent edits of an anonymous IP. That's why I invite the ip to explain his edits here and remember that until the discussion is finished is the last stable version that should be visible. Alex2006 (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It is you and the other user should discuss any changes before doing any substantial editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.87.188 (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You first inserted your proposal on 12 February. It was immediately removed as being, in the view of other editors, a disimprovement. In accordance with WP:BRD, it was then up to you to explain, through discussion, the reasons why you think it is, on the contrary, an improvement on what was there before. This you have not done, although it is up to the person who wants to make a change to justify making it. Technically, you can be blocked from editing because of doing 4 reverts within 24 hours, but perhaps it is best to give you a further chance to try and justify making the change you desire. In the meantime, I am restoring the text without your controversial change. Esoglou (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
What insert are you talking about? Nothing!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.7.2 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
If there was no alteration, there is nothing to discuss. Esoglou (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
You are the one who made the significant reduction of data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.7.2 (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ip 49.150.7.2 why dont you reveal yourself and tell us why you are defending the person. Hold on let me gues you done it. stop vandalising the page people want to learn go get your kicks somewhere else Whytho00 (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Unofficial diplomatic relations

Ryulong, when you say, "It's called the Taipei cultural offices in every other country", what is the "it" that you are speaking of? And does your comment mean that there are such things as unofficial diplomatic relations? Do you mean that, for instance, Britain has "diplomatic relations" with the Taiwan government, but that they are only unofficial? That would be a strange definition of "diplomatic relations". Esoglou (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

yes there are unofficial diplomatic relations because of the complex nature of the political status of the Republic of China.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Then you have a very strange idea of diplomatic relations. You know that all kinds of associations can have cultural offices in all kinds of countries. Does that mean that the countries have diplomatic relations with those associations? Surely not! Before diplomatic relations - I repeat, diplomatic relations - were established between the Holy See and the United States, there was an Apostolic Delegation in Washington. Do you maintain that already then there were "unofficial diplomatic relations" between the Holy See and the United States? Surely not! Do you maintain that there are now "unofficial diplomatic relations" between the United Kingdom and the Republic of China? Again, surely not! Esoglou (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes but these various "Taipei Cultural offices" serve as the unofficial embassies between the nations that do not recognize the ROC but do recognize Taiwan's sovereignty in an unofficial manner. Just look at Foreign relations of Taiwan for heaven's sake.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Taipei does not list its cultural offices as embassies, nor even as "unofficial embassies". It lists its embassies as embassies. The Holy See includes Apostolic Delegations in its list of "Rappresentanze Pontificie" (Papal Representatives' Offices), but indicates that they do not have the diplomatic character of the Apostolic Nunciatures (equivalents of embassies). Taipei and the Holy See understand what is meant by diplomatic relations, which either exist or do not exist. And they know what is meant by establishing diplomatic relations and breaking diplomatic relations. Esoglou (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
That's what they are though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that the adjective "official" should be removed from the text, since it is not present in the source, so that it is - at the best - WP:OR. Alex2006 (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Correct. If the expression can be sourced, only then can it be restored to Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Semantics and pedantry

User:Ryulong insists on speaking of "the government of Taiwan" on the grounds that the previous text was based on "semantics and pedantry". If Ryulong's insistence (15 reverts of edits by 3 different editors within 14 hours) on using this expression rather than "the government in Taipei" or "the government in Taiwan" is not itself based on Ryulong's own semantics and pedantry, what else is it based on other than a determination to get across a particular point of view in violation of WP:NPOV? Why else insist on an expression that is not necessary, and that does not correspond to how either side views the relationship established between them? Esoglou (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I was reverting a nationalist vandal who was insistent that this article have two mentions of the Holy See's mission in Taiwan to be sure that it referred to the country as the "Republic of China (Taiwan)" and that everyone who edited the page was sure that Taiwan was an independent and democratic industrialized island nation. We should point to the article on Taiwan rather than the one on Taipei and use the terminology established by consensus over the article on the other nation. And your sources simply refer to "China" and have the Taiwanese flag on them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Let us talk about your refusal of my proposals – you don't think I am a "nationalistic vandal" do you? Why do you think it is necessary to say "of Taiwan" rather than "in Taiwan"? Esoglou (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Because it's obvious that the Holy See has a diplomatic relationship with an entity they refer to as "the Republic of China" which on the English Wikipedia has been decided to be called Taiwan as the article title and notes that it is the informal name of the geopolitical entity. When in doubt, keep it simple. So it should not be referred to as the "government in Taipei" (your original wording) but the "government of Taiwan (officially the Republic of China)" or some other similar variation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for making that change. It is an improvement. Esoglou (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry that you were dragged into this mess about the name of the nation in question. Just be grateful (or perhaps ironically jealous) that you weren't accused of being a communist hacker like I was earlier.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
May I make a slight suggestion about the wording. It would be more logical to write: "diplomatic relations with the government of Taiwan (officially named the Republic of China) as representing China, rather than with the government of the People's Republic of China". As it stands, it seems to contrast "China" with "the People's Republic of China". Neither of us wants that. Esoglou (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
That does sound better. Go right on ahead with that if you want.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Would you please do it yourself? I very rarely go as far as three "reverts" (alterations of other editors' work in a single article) in a day. I presume that nobody would object if I acted as you suggest, but I prefer to keep within the 3RR limit. On the other hand, you who have made the most recent edit can add another without it being counted as another "revert". Would you mind doing it, please? Otherwise, I'll wait until this time tomorrow. On second thoughts, I see I could do it, since I would not be altering anything already in the article. Still, I prefer not to. Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You have consensus so it doesn't matter. Just fix it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Transfer to Avignon

Why isn't the transfer to the Avignon Papacy mentioned in this article? Seattle (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think it should? Wherever a pope lived, whether in Avignon or Orvieto or any of the other places where they have in fact resided, he was Bishop of Rome. Present-day popes do not alter the Holy See when they spend time at Castel Gandolfo. Esoglou (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a Diocese

Can anyone please enlighten me why the Holy See is not considered as a diocese? I never seen a topic here regarding its diocesan structure but purely foreign relations and dicasteries. I thought it is a particular church headed by a bishop, but when I read this article, I was wrong about it. There is a certain Diocese of Rome very different from the Holy See. Two different organizations headed by the same person, weird. --112.206.34.55 (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a diocese, an episcopal see. Why does Wikipedia have two articles, one headed "Holy See", the other headed "Diocese of Rome"? The article "Diocese of Rome" considers that episcopal see under the aspect of its internal activity, the article "Holy See" considers the same episcopal see under the aspect of its relationship with other episcopal sees, with Catholics everywhere, and, in view of its central position within the Catholic Church, with non-Catholic entities. Perhaps Wikipedia editors felt that, if the aspect of its internal activity were not given an article on its own, it would seem crowded out in the supposed single article by all the information about the other aspect, which is what most people outside of Rome itself are almost exclusively interested in, and would in fact risk being deleted.
In short, there is not a certain Diocese of Rome very different from the Holy See. There are not two different organizations headed by the same person. Whether having two articles with their present names is weird in Wikipedia is a matter that concerns Wikipedia, not the Holy See of Rome. Does this matter need to be discussed? Esoglou (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Then why Anakin Skywalker was merged with Darth Vader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.31.89 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

How about this? The Diocese of Rome can readily be understood. No argument there.
The Holy See is (maybe) like a super-Metropolitan. That is, the Holy See has the whole world as its metropolis, whereas (for example) Boston has only the New England States. Boston itself being an archdiocese of the local Boston area and the metropolis of New England with Boston as its hub. Does this makes sense? If so, they are not duplicate terms. Student7 (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. The Holy See/Diocese of Rome has the Roman Province as its metropolis. Again, why Anakin Skywalker was merged with Darth Vader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.45.78 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's the other way round. The ecclesiastical province of Rome has the diocese of Rome as its metropolis. The diocese of Rome is the metropolis for the dioceses of the province and, as has been said above, a kind of super-metropolis for all the dioceses of the Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Please take a look at File:Vatican relations.svg( it's is used in this article )Does Hong Kong have any relation to the Holy See? I'm raising this question because the said picture doesn't show that there's one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight of Gloucestershire (talk • contribs) 08:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

British English?

I think we have been generally using British English in European articles, by convention. I put it above, not realizing that it might be contentious. In the meantime someone changed "organisation" back to "organization." We need to agree on this. American English is usually used in Western Hemisphere affairs (except for Canada and English influence areas like Bermuda, etc. Japan, Philippines, that sort of thing. Student7 (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on this suggests that we should use American English. Please see MOS:RETAIN in the Manual of Style. You'll notice that this article was orinially written in American English, and that the first non-stubby version of it was in American English. The article has continued, with the exception of a couple of stray words, to retain American English spelling.
There are plenty of "European" articles which do not use British spelling. Per WP:TIES, subjects which have a strong tie to the United Kingdom should certainly use British spelling (example: Winston Churchill.) The Holy See does not meet this criterion. While it's located closer to Britain than to the U.S., one could argue that the U.S. is more closely related to the Holy See than is Britain by virtue of its significantly larger catholic population. I would suggest that neither continent nor population meet the WP:TIES criteria and that MOS:RETAIN dictates American English. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

British and US authority in lede

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office speaks of Vatican City as the "capital" of the Holy See, although it compares the legal personality of the Holy See to that of the Crown in Christian monarchies and declares that the Holy See and the state of Vatican City are two international identities. It also distinguishes between the employees of the Holy See (2,750 working in the Roman Curia with another 333 working in the Holy See's diplomatic missions abroad) and the 1,909 employees of the state.[4] The British Ambassador to the Holy See uses more precise language, saying that the Holy See "is not the same as the Vatican City State. … (It) is the universal government of the Catholic Church and operates from the Vatican City State."[5] This agrees exactly with the expression used by the website of the United States Department of State, in giving information on both the Holy See and the Vatican City State: it too says that the Holy See "operates from the Vatican City State".

Comment: Surely we should be telling our readers what the Catholic Church or the Vatican City State have to say about these matters, not what some foreign powers have to say about them. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
It's too much detail for the the lead, so I have moved it to the Diplomacy section. It may be best to remove it from this article althogether, since there's a daughter article on the Holy See's diplomacy. Majoreditor (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation

In the Holy_See#Status_in_international_law section, it is maintained that the Holy See has diplomatic relations with 178 sovereign states, while the Holy_See#Diplomacy section asserts that it has diplomatic relations with 179. The information given in the English Vatican/ Holy See website dissents and agrees with both those assertions. This page states that the Holy See maintains diplomatic relations with 176 sovereign states excluding the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and has special relations with the Russian Federation. This sums to 178. On an alternate page it lists only 176 nations. According to the source given in the article (from the same website) there are 179 states with which the Holy See maintains diplomatic relations.

I have noticed that the first two resources stated above were both last updated on 31st May 2007 while the third one, from the article, doesn't indicate when it was last updated. Interestingly, while the third source includes Malaysia and Botswana the second one omits them. The second source, I presume, is continued on the first external source I gave, so both include the Russian Federation and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta making their sum 178 for the second and 179 for the third source. I am inclined towards the third because of this resource ,which verifies the third source, but cannot ascertain this since it asserts that there are 177 states which have diplomatic relations with the Holy See.

As the Vatican website is supposed to serve as the primary source of verifiable information regarding the Holy See, this ambiguity presents a problem in giving definite encyclopaedic information. There may be other sources that give either consenting or dissenting figures but that information may be subject to bias and would thus be inaccurate.Thuralt (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What you call "the first two resources" are Wikipedia articles and therefore are not reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia. They should be corrected in line with sources that are reliable. Other sources that you have cited, reliable ones, give correct information about the situation on the dates to which they refer. The most recent reliable source that you mentioned is updated to 27 July last and, since there has been no change since then, it is still exact for today: diplomatic relations with 179 states plus diplomatic relations with two entities that are not states (European Union and Sovereign Military Order of Malta) plus special relations with the Palestine Liberation Organization (which is not a state). Esoglou (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I was actually referencing the first two external sources I had given and I'll presume you meant 27 July last year since you've omitted whatever it is you wanted to say, which is quite reliable, but all that is rendered moot since, it seems, we both agree on a figure of 179 sovereign states.Thuralt (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Move

I suggest to move the page to Holy See (Vatican) or something like that and create a disambiguation page here, because of the upcomming film “The Holy See” by Godfrey Reggio. Release date is scheduled for spring 2012, and there are two trailers online. See here: http://blog.documentarychannel.com/post/11672433941/trailers-godfrey-reggios-the-holy-see

--helohe (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I counterpropose that the the article for the movie be named The Holy See (movie) and that this article retain its current name. A quick Google search reveals that almost all references to Holy See refer to ... well, the Holy See. If the movie ever starts to rival the (real) Holy See in popularity then we can consider a disambiguation page. For now it remains to be seen if the movie amounts to anything at all. Majoreditor (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Majoreditor. As an example, just because we have a movie called Australia does not mean we rename the country's article to "Australia (country)". --SMasters (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
No, moving this page is a really bad idea. For starters, as WP is NOT a crystal ball, we shouldn't be writing pages about films before they're even made. And if the film is made, an article on it would have to satisfy notability. And if it does that, you would then have to make a case that this Holy See is no longer the primary topic for this title. Until then, any film article would have to conform to WP:DISAMBIGUATION by being titled (as Majoreditor said) "Holy See (film)" or somesuch. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
PS You've been here long enough to know that, Helohe; are you just trailling a coat, here? Moonraker12 (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Extent of Authority?

"Under the terms of the Lateran Treaty, the Holy See has extraterritorial authority over 23 sites in Rome and five Italian sites outside of Rome, including the Pontifical Palace at Castel Gandolfo. The same authority is extended under international law over the Apostolic Nunciature of the Holy See in a foreign country."

Just a point of clarification. How can the Lateran Treaty (an accord between Italy and the Vatican) create a recognition of the Holy See's authority over the Apostolic Nunicature in other states? Or is this saying that some other international treaty grants this right to the Holy See? If so, what treaty or other instrument enshrines this right? Or is this, in fact, a self-declared right, or just a matter of established practice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.124.249 (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk: List of sovereign states

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:List of sovereign states under the Bundling of "UN observer states" and "member states of UN Specialized Agencies" subhead about things like:

  • Should Kosovo and Holy See really be bundled together?
  • Should permanent observers (i.e. Holy See) have its own category?
  • Should the list be amended so it does not incorrectly say that the Vatican City is a UN observer....its not, the Holy See is.
  • if Kosovo is listed with the Holy See, must Niue and Cook Islands also be so listed.

Not many editors are involved and there is a desire to broaden the participation. Hope some of you wish to contribute. Just click there and give your views. Thanks. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the second section does not cover all the arguments, and is too much pro, leaving out arguments.

In the recent book "The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse", Penguin, October 2010, the human rights lawyer [Robertson] summarizes the legal status of the Vatican statehood and doubts the common arguments and backs it up with the several standard texts on international law. He summarizes the consequences of both statehood and non-statehood for the recent paedophile scandals and its decade-long cover-up, how the Vatican sometimes insists on its statehood, other times does not, just as it fits its purpose.

So I think the article conveys a wrong and impression of the real state and should mirror more critically the debate about the Vatican statehood even among specialists for international law. --Tcheh (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The section reports the fact of recognition of its status in international law. Robertson argues that the fact should be undone. But it has not yet been undone. Esoglou (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
"the Vatican sometimes insists on its statehood, other times does not" So? Does a state or country have to insist on its statehood all the time? And what is the relations between a state and criminals? Every country has pedophiles. Would we hold a state responsible for its pedophiles? For example, would someone sue the U.S. because they were raped by a citizen of the U.S.? Robertson can have his opinion. But many countries continue to recognize the Holy See as a state (they host its embassies and ambassadors). Unless, this changes, Robertson's arguments remain just that. – SMasters (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
And would someone sue the US because a citizen of another country committed the rape, which is the analogy here?
The pope has a lot more vague control over it's 4000+ bishops than might be imagined. They are still trying to implement the reforms of Vatican II, decided in the early 1960s. And very little direct control over it's 500,000 priests. I doubt that they even know who they are. It's not Microsoft! Student7 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you are going slightly off-track here. The answer to your question is no. A person cannot sue a country if one of its citizens committed a rape, nor can they sue a country if a citizen of another country commits a rape. However, if it wasn't a country, but an organization, like the scouts, then yes, they can hold the organization responsible. Which is what Robertson is trying to argue. However, as long as countries do recognize the Holy See as a legal state, suing it is not possible. Just because one person puts forth an argument (which many others refuse to buy, I might add), does not mean that we have to change the whole legal status/statehood (as suggested by Tcheh) or even remove it (as suggested by Esoglou). Tcheh's argument that "the article conveys a wrong and impression of the real state" because of the argument of one person is incorrect IMHO. – SMasters (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I was under the impression that, if the person in question was, say, an employee of the US embassy in that other country, or an employee of some other arm of the US government *and* the crime was committed during, or in association with, the performance of their duties under such employment *then* it was plausible that such a case could be made. I also think your analogy here is a bad one. Take another, IMO, closer analogy: could a state or local government be held responsible for the crimes of paeophile teachers or care workers? What if the state not only failed to report such cases that came to its attention but actively protected their employees from prosecution by withholding documents, continually moving the employees to different locations, and by applying only its own internal disciplinary procedures in cases that were clearly in the realm of criminal law? Suppose it then, over decades, failed to make even modest changes to prevent such cases occurring in future? Surely this would be grounds (in the US, anyway) for a class action? I think Robertson makes this point too. I *don't* think Robertson claims that the Holy See has to NOT be a state for such as case to be brought. Rather that, if it is a state, a case can be brought in one way (under international human rights law). But if it isn't it can be brought another (as against any other large organization). His claim, if I remember the book right, is that the Vatican/Holy See is essential hiding in the gap between these two possibilities.81.156.124.249 (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Re 'So? Does a state or country have to insist on its statehood all the time?'. I don't think that is the point. Irrespective of what the entity in question 'insists' a given entity surely has to either be a state all of the time, or not at all? (Granting that historically states are created and cease to exist.) The entity in question can't pick and choose when to be a state, just as other states can't pick an choose when to treat it as one. There is a mirror here of how Israel treats Palestine, claiming it is a state sometimes (when claiming to be at war with it) and not at others (when blocking vessels from its waters; detaining people who enter 'Israel', i.e. Gaza, 'illegally'). Robertson's other important point is that the 1933 Montevideo Convention provides an objective, legal definition of a state; one that can be applied in a court of law. This is something that established convention - apparently the real reason the Vatican/Holy See has been granted, and has assumed this status - can't do. (Otherwise, one state could pick and choose the 'statehoodness' of other states to match current political expedience. Neither the Vatican nor the Holy See meets mosts of the Montevideo criteria. So, although in international practice the Vatican/Holy See is de facto recognized as a state, this does not mean it would automatically be in a court of law (especially in the context of cases brought which hinge on its statehood or lack thereof).81.156.124.249 (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations

Holy See says (emphasis added): "The Holy See, not the Vatican City, maintains diplomatic relations with states and participates in international organizations" but Politics_of_Vatican_City#International_organization_participation gives two separate lists of international organizations of which the Holy See and the Vatican City are members. Apokrif (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Vatican City State is a member of some few technical international governmental organizations. It doesn't have diplomatic relations with any entity. There is no international governmental organization of which both the Holy See and the Vatican City State are members. Esoglou (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Holy See, Roman Curia and Vatican City State

I agree with SMasters' assertion that Government of People's Republic of China – Holy See relations would be incorrect but I disagree with his justification. To say that "the Holy See has relations with countries, not governments" is a meaningless assertion. How can there be a difference between a country and a government in this context? The relations are with the countries through the government of that country and, in this specific context, the country and the government are effectively the same thing. When we say "relations with China", we can only mean "relations with the government of the People's Republic of China". The fact that we don't say "government of..." in the article title is because it's superfluous. No English speaker would ever suppose that anything else was meant. --Richard S (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Let me clarify. I typed that in haste. The relationship with any particular country, is of course through its government. - S Masters (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... let us consider that we have articles such as Israel – United States relations. In general, I expect that the pattern would be X - Y relations where X and Y are names of countries and not, as has been pointed out above, the names of capitals. Now, when we turn to the Holy See, the problem is that the entity involved here is not a country but a religion, namely the Catholic Church.

Yú Hǎi seems to like consistency and is wondering why we use the phrase "Holy See" in titles. Using the analogy of articles about relations between countries, we might expect that the parallel would be to use the phrase "Catholic Church" in article titles. To this, I can only respond that doing so would sound strange to most people who are familiar with the Catholic Church. The phrase "Holy See" is used to describe the religious, administrative and diplomatic head of the Catholic Church, I admit that using "Holy See" would be somewhat analogous to saying "Washington, D.C.", "Whitehall" or "the Kremlin" and thus would not achieve the consistency that Yú Hǎi seeks. Nonetheless, I think we have to forego consistency and use terms that are used in the real world. "Holy See" is the only way to go.

It's also important to note that there is no substance to Yú Hǎi's arguments about separate articles regarding Relations concerning the People's Republic of China and the Holy See/People's Republic of China – Vatican City State relations and Relations concerning the People's Republic of China and the Holy See/Government of People's Republic of China – Roman Curia relations.

While it would be going too far to say that the Roman Curia and the Holy See are equivalent, the Roman Curia does form an important part of the administration of the Holy See. There is no reason to imagine that any country would have relations with the Roman Curia per se except as part of their relations with the Catholic Church in the form of relations with the Holy See. Almost no countries would have any relations with the Vatican City State as such with the possible exception of Italy. Even then, the head of the Vatican City State is the head of the Holy See (namely the Pope) and so it's takes a stretch to conceive of two separate articles Relations concerning Italy and the Holy See and Relations concerning Italy and the Vatican City State.

The important thing to note here is that most capital cities have a separate city government which is distinct from the government of the country of which it is a capital. The Vatican City State isn't quite so independent. The Vatican City State is both a city and a country and the head of state is the Pope who also happens to be the head of the Holy See and the Catholic Church. What we're talking about is the relations between a country (e.g. the People's Republic of China) and the religion known as "the Catholic Church". It's just that the proper usage here is "the Holy See".

Hope this helps, Yú Hǎi.

--Richard S (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In international organizations, members are designated by the name of the country, not as "Goverment of such-and-such a country". The designation used for the particular member we are speaking of is "Holy See", not "Vatican City State" nor "Catholic Church" nor "Government of ...". In Wikipedia we can only accept this demonstrable fact, not argue that it should not be so.
The status of the Catholic Church as such as an agent in international law is dubious at best. The status as an agent in international law of the Holy See, the episcopal see of Rome that is central for the Catholic Church, is a demonstrable fact, whether we like the fact or not. Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I should have added that, in some international organizations (e.g. Universal Postal Union, International Telecommunications Satellite Organization) the Vatican City State, not the Holy See, is a member - see [1] (scroll to the end). These are organizations that concern technical territorial affairs, and so are of the concern of the state. Again the designation is "Vatican City" not "Government of Vatican City" or "Holy See". Another demonstrable fact. Esoglou (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the "designation used for the particular member" can be Holy See (the government of Vatican City State and Roman Catho...), the designation of other states, when used with Holy See, the particular case, should be particular, too, or it would be a discrimination of other countries. There is no relations between Italy and Holy See, only relations between Italy and Vatican City State, and relations between Government of Italy and Holy See. That the international law allow Holy See to mistreat other countries should not be an excuse of considering writing such "State - Government relations" article neutral. With articles in Template:Foreign relations of the Holy See, only one article is written in neutral sense - Holy See – Palestinian relations: Holy See could not have relations with the State of Palestine (only Vatican City State can), but only relations with Palestinian National Authority. If they can, I may also write an article: My Seat – United States relations.

My Chiar may have complex relations to the United States.

Or Holy See – Vatican City State relations.

Now one thing is clear and a consensus: Holy See=Government of Vatican City State + Roman Curia.

I know that directly seprate these article may produce problem, so I made a tamplate, which can be here. Hope it helps. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC )

How can you say: "There is no relations between Italy and Holy See, only relations between Italy and Vatican City State, and relations between Government of Italy and Holy See"? Have you never heard of the 1929 Lateran Treaty between Italy (already existing) and the Holy See (already existing), the treaty that brought Vatican City into existence for the first time ever as a separate state? And when the Fascist Government of Italy, which concluded the treaty on behalf of Italy, was no more, the treaty continued to bind the two parties, i.e. Italy and the Holy See. Esoglou (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It is, but not bilaterial relations. There're even relations between my chair and United States, but not bilaterial relations either. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
What else are Italy-Holy See relations but bilateral (between two parties)? I hope you will not be too disappointed to learn that neither the Holy See not the United States are likely to conclude a treaty or exchange ambassadors with your chair! Esoglou (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yú Hǎi, I understand that you are trying to make sense of the distinction between the Holy See and the Vatican City State. I think the problem here is that you are hung up on making distinctions based on some sort of Aristotelian approach to categorization. Unfortunately, the reality does not lend itself to a straightforward apples-to-apples, oranges-to-oranges comparison. I would urge you to abandon the attempt to make everything fall into nice clean categories and focus on understanding what is true about the Holy See and the Vatican City State in the real world and then work to make Wikipedia explain that reality to the reader.
The most important thing you need to understand is that the Catholic Church lost almost all of its temporal power over the course of the nineteenth century culminating in 1870 when it lost the Papal States. Focusing on the Vatican City State is to focus on a very small country which is much less important than the Singapore city state in terms of economic and political influence. A more appropriate analogue would be Monaco.
While it is technically true that there are some international relations of the Vatican City State around issues such as postage, there are very few such relations notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article unless it is a very specialized one.
What's important about the Vatican, the Roman Curia, the Holy See is that these are all related to the role of the Pope as the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church. To understand this, compare the "History" section of the Vatican City article vs. the article History of the Catholic Church.
So, while you are technically correct in attempting to draw a distinction between the "Holy See" and the "Vatican City State", the distinction does not result in a worthwhile difference when it comes to articles relative to articles about relations between the "Holy See" and other countries.
Any attempt to differentiate the country from its government (e.g. "the People's Republic of China" from "The Government of the People's Republic of China" or "Italy" from "the government of Italy") is meaningless in the specific context of this discussion. Yes, one can come up with situations where it might be useful to draw such a distinction but I don't think this discussion is one of them.
--Richard S (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the Holy See is unique. It was never a theocracy but still enjoyed brief preeminence in the West. I can't think of another institution where this happened. United Nations, maybe? Even though the UN is in NYC we don't refer to it by city/location. Student7 (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The Holy See is indeed a unique situation in international relations. Another unique situation is the Court of St. James's, to which are accredited the ambassadors sent by other nations to the United Kingdom. Eagle4000 (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Vatican City

The following discussion has concluded. Please do not modify this section. Result of discussion: Do not merge.

Since Holy See is so-called a "sovereign entity", Vatican City is no longer a sovereign entity. ––虞海(Yú Hǎi) 15:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Holy See seems to be a ruling entity of Vatican, and a ruling entity does not have the sovereignty. ––虞海(Yú Hǎi) 15:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Whether the Vatican City State is or is not sovereign (and no reliable source has been cited for its alleged lack of sovereignty), it is not the same entity as the Holy See. Similarly, the fact that the British sovereign is the supreme governor of the Church of England is no ground for merging the Wikipedia articles on these two distinct entities. Esoglou (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it is like trying to merge Paris with the Government of France article. History2007 (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The Holy See is an episcopal see – an administrative body of the Church, and its central government. Vatican City is a physical place. You do not go on holidays to the Holy See. You do go on holidays to Vatican City. Diplomatic passports are issued by the Holy See, not Vatican City State. You purchase postage stamps from the Philatelic and Numismatic Office of the Vatican City State, not from the Philatelic and Numismatic Office of the Holy See. They are entirely separate entities. I can't see any good reason for merging the two. – S Masters (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Then we can take an example: You do go on holidays to Vietnam. Diplomatic passports are issued by the Socialist Republic, not Vietnam. You might be attacked by the Vietnam People's Army, not by the Socialist Republic's People's Army. So they're also entirely separate entities. Will you split them? If you don't do it, it would be discrimination to Vietnamese and respectness to Vatican, and is not allowed by NPOV. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Going with your argument, you are advocating that Canberra be merged into Government of Australia and London into Government of the United Kingdom? - S Masters (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
And sorry, to answer your questions regarding Vietnam, I'm guessing that they are not separate articles because there is not enough content to split them. If you can come up with enough content, you can go ahead and create those pages and "split" them – no one will stop you. – S Masters (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize that Vatican City is not only the abbr of Vatican City State, but also the name of a city. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Vatican City is important architectural instance, and the Holy See is an religious center. Those two are just by accident in one place, but those are two different concepts. --WhiteWriter speaks 22:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hainan island is an important island instance, and Hainan province is an executive body... Split them, as your opinion. If you don't do it, it would be discrimination to Chinese and respectness to Vatican, and is not allowed by NPOV. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Good Heavens. The Pope is over 80 years old. Do you guys want to give him a heart attack if he hears this? History2007 (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the relation between Pope and Wikipedia? If I say: “Oh, I'm 3000000 years old, if you don't merge them I'll get a heart attack”, will you merge it? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Merger is into two different kinds of articles, one a place, the other a religious administrative area. Student7 (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then America is a place, and United States is a political administrative area... Split them at once. If you don't do it, it would be discrimination to American and respectness to Vatican, and is not allowed by NPOV. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
America is a continent (actually, two). The United States is a country, and its administration is done in Washington. It is governed by political parties. And all of these have their own page, they don't require splitting. I think you are highly confused about NPOV. – S Masters (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Americas are 2 continents, consits of North America and South America. Yet America (proper, not disambiguation) is a physical place in North America, with United States as its sovereign body. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The Holy See and Vatican City State are two distinct entities, unlike the United States and (in what 虞海 calls the proper sense) "America", which are the same entity. It is obvious by now that consensus for merging will not be attained and the question should be closed. Esoglou (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Holy See is the "Government" of Vatican?

Per S Masters, Holy See is the Goverment of the Vatican City State, then there're new NPOV issues.

  1. In other articles, such as France, in the "foreign relations" section we use the term "foreign relations of <statename>", not "foreign relations of the government of <statename>". Only Holy See become the special case.
  2. Articles such as People's Republic of China – Holy See relations should be renamed on a 50-50 basis (NPOV), say Government of People's Republic of China – Holy See relations, People's Republic of China – Vatican City relations or People's Republic of China – Vatican City State relations. Here Vatican City means Vatican City State.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a special case. In the unlikely scenario where the Holy See moves to a different location, it would still be the central government of the Catholic Church, and it would still have its own page, and Vatican City, as a place, would still have its own page, regardless of whether the Holy See is located there or not. As we have all being trying to explain to you over and over again, they are separate entities. There are no NPOV issues, you are a bit confused about NPOV. The Holy See is the government of the entire Catholic Church throughout the whole world, not just Vatican City. That is why foreign relations is with the preeminent episcopal see and not the city or country. Therefore, People's Republic of China – Holy See relations is correct and People's Republic of China – Vatican City relations is not. It is nearly a week and there is not a single support for this - because it can't be supported. We will close this discussion by tomorrow. – S Masters (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I see that Zaixionito has already removed the template. As such, I will close this discussion and vote. - S Masters (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The template is was removed, and I didn't readd the template, but it's not a signal that the discussion is finished. If you need, I can readd the template now. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, the Holy See is the so-called “government” of the whole Roman Catholic church, but this should not be an excuse of speak out “People's Republic of China – Holy See relations”. Imagine one day you see an article “United States – Union of Islamic Organisations of France relations” or “France – Michelle Obama's Husband relations”, what will you think? The article should be moved to “Relations concerning the People's Republic of China and the Holy See” as a disambiguation page, which refers 2 subpages: Relations concerning the People's Republic of China and the Holy See/People's Republic of China – Vatican City State relations and Relations concerning the People's Republic of China and the Holy See/Government of People's Republic of China – Roman Curia relations due to NPOV issues. Plus, you did not answer me why Government of People's Republic of China – Holy See relations is not correct. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
A template can be seen [User:虞海/Relations concerning the People's Republic of China and the Holy See|here]]. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not re-add the template. There is clearly no support for this argument and it will not pass. The Holy See is a special case due to historical reasons. Government of People's Republic of China – Holy See relations is incorrect because the Holy See has relations with countries, not governments. The Holy See is not a normal government, nor is Vatican City a normal country. Please read both articles carefully to understand why, especially here, here and here (which describes it as a sui generis entity). This discussion has now ended and I will not answer anymore questions regarding this topic here. Thanks. – S Masters (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
SMasters, you certainly have the right to end your participation in the discussion. However, to assert that the discussion is ended is a bit peremptory on your part. If Yú Hǎi wishes to continue the discussion and others wish to respond, that is their concern not yours. --Richard S (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If Yú Hǎi wishes to continue this discussion, then start a new thread. This particular discussion was for a vote in merging, and many of those who voted, asked for it to be closed. (Either here or via the edit comments). - S Masters (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I didn't realize that you meant the discussion about the Merge proposal which should be closed per WP:SNOW. --Richard S (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the Holy See "bigger" than Vatican City? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.31.89 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

So what is it?

No where, not here, nor on the "politics: forms of government" page, is there a description of what the Holy See is. I.e., constitutional, parlementary, theocracy?

Nor is there a "clean cut" description of the difference between the Roman Curia and the College of Cardinals. 76.90.74.10 (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York "constitutional, parlementary, theocracy"? The same for the See of Rome.
The Roman Curia is a set of offices in Rome, the College of Cardinals is a set of people spread over the world. Esoglou (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge: Holy Roman Church

The article Holy Roman Church seems to me unnecessary. The article itself states that it is the same thing as the Diocese of Rome or the Holy See. The only purpose the article itself seems to serve is to define yet another term (which violates WP:NAD). Given that there does not appear to be a unique topic to be discussed there I propose merging here.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Anticipating a possible concern, even to the extent that Holy Roman Church could be argued to discuss something unique, the question is whether that topic is distinct enough to merit a separate article from Roman Catholic Church, Diocese of Rome, or Holy See. Any subtle distinction that could be argued to exist -- I believe -- is better covered in one of the other articles. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the term is ambiguous as it could refer to three separate articles. I think in that case, turning it into a disambiguation page is the most proper course of action. Gentgeen (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I can support that. Any objections to converting to a disambig? --Mcorazao (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

sovereignty recognition?

We have the list of 178 countries recognizing the Holy See as sovereign, established diplomatic relations, etc. But are there other states, that do not recognize it as sovereign entity? Reading this makes me think that there aren't such, but still, having in mind the special status of the Holy See and the related Vatican City State, I think it would be good to have such info confirmed (like we have the "states do not recognize Israel as a state" - there the list of countries with no "established relations/suspended relations/withdrawn their recognition" is separate from the list of countries that do not recognize it "as state").

Also, Foreign relations of the Holy See states - "The Holy See maintains formal diplomatic relations with 178 sovereign states, the European Union, and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and has relations of a special nature with the Palestine Liberation Organization.[12] The Holy See maintains 179 permanent diplomatic missions abroad, of which 73 are non-residential, so that it has in all 106 concrete missions, some of which are accredited not only to the country in which they are situated, but also to one or more other countries or international organizations.", and this contradicts List of diplomatic missions of the Holy See and Nuncio - where there are more than 106 (but less than 179).

It seems that there are two types of recognizing states:

  1. Recognizing Holy See as sovereign entity, regardless of its status as "state" (the Vatican City)
  2. Recognizing Holy See "as government" (maybe not the proper term) of sovereign state (the Vatican City) only, but not as "non-state sovereign entity"

Here, partial list could be made by the states that recognized it before the 1929 Vatican City establishment.

About the diplomatic missions - it is clear, that out of the 181 entities (178 + EU, SMOM, PLO) with relations (but there is also the non state Jerusalem mission, so maybe there are totaly 182 "locations"?), some do not get even a non-resident diplomat (no accreditation) - if the 179 number is correct. But, as there is no clear distinction in the missions of article about resident and non-resident missions it is impossible to check. It would be helpful to have:

  1. List of physical missions with accredited resident diplomat
  2. List of entities that have non-resident diplomat accredited (and where he is based)
  3. Clarification if the Jerusalem mission is accredited to PLO or there is a separate mission (based in Jerusalem/Ramallah/Gaza?) or PLO is one of the no-accreditation entities)
  4. Clarification if there is physical mission (Rome based) or non-resident diplomat accredited to SMOM (and where is he based, if non-resident)
  5. Clarification if there is physical mission (Brussels based) or non-resident diplomat accredited to EU (and where is he based, if non-resident)

Connected with the above and with the sovereignty recognition is the issue of non-diplomatic (eg. Catholic Church only) representatives. As it seems there are:

  1. The 178 (including Cook Islands, Taiwan [2]) + EU, SMOM - diplomatic relations established
  2. The PLO - special relations
  3. Jerusalem - special mission
  4. Somalia (SMOM relations), Brunei, Malaysia - "there are apostolic delegates, pontifical representatives to the local Catholic communities but not to the government.", "formal contact"
  5. Comoros (SMOM relations), Mauritania (SMOM relations), Laos, Myanmar - "there are apostolic delegates, pontifical representatives to the local Catholic communities but not to the government."
  6. Afghanistan (SMOM relations), Oman (in process of establishing relations), and Vietnam (in process of establishing relations) - "formal contact"
  7. PR China - "semi-official contacts"
  8. Saudi Arabia - "Catholic worship is still officially prohibited", "Islamic Vatican", but nevertheless "formal contact"
  9. Bhutan, North Korea, Tuvalu, Niue, Kosovo ("whose international status is still controversial" - like others with limited recogntion) - nothing in the link
  10. Maldives - "priests are not even allowed to come to assist the many Catholic tourists present in the archipelago"

It would be good if we can find sources showing if some of these ~17 countries do not recognize the Holy See as sovereign, but maybe there are none, as even Saudi Arabia looks to work with it. The respective post about SMOM recognition is here. Alinor (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You have put too many questions for me to digest. Would you please begin by distinguishing between recognizing a state and having diplomatic relations with it. The Holy See recognizes Saudi Arabia: when one of that kingdom's rulers is received by the Pope, the announcement of the audience mentions the kingdom. This contrasts with the situation, at least in the past, in one would-be-Marxist state in Africa which refused to recognize the Republic of Korea: the official media in the country were not allowed to give news about that state but only about "the southern part of Korea"! You need more than the absence of diplomatic relations with the Holy See to conclude that any particular state denies the sovereignty of the Holy See.
If you wish, I will try to answer your questions tomorrow, but only one at a time. Which one? Esoglou (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"You need more than the absence of diplomatic relations with the Holy See to conclude that any particular state denies the sovereignty of the Holy See." - Exactly my point. That is what the post is about. To find out IF there are such cases - to find sources showing "more than the absence of diplomatic relations" IF at all there are such (or as there are only a few states without diplomatic relations - to find the opposite sources showing that they don't deny the sovereignty of the Holy See; even better if explicitly mentioned if they relate this to Vatican City state or not - but I think sources with such distinction would be impossible to find).
Questions. They are basically two:
  • A List of physical missions with accredited resident diplomat and his non-resident accreditations noted, clarifications for the special cases.
  • Of the 17 states without diplomatic relations - do they recognize the Holy See as sovereign (albeit without having relations with it), or do they not recognize it. If possible, do they recognize it as "state", "non-state entity" or both. The state/non-state/both question is applicable to the rest 181 too.
The second question may be impossible to answer - if the states have not made such statements, so if you have to choose - select the first. Alinor (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I understand better now. With regard to the one I thought I was answering yesterday, it would be hard to find any state, whether it has diplomatic relations with the Holy See or not, that has issued a declaration that it considers the Holy See a state or a non-state entity. Recognition is generally implicit, not express, and this implicit recognition is of a subject of international law, an entity that one interrelates with in public international law, and so, in that sense, a sovereign entity, whether it is a state or not. I have difficulty in believing that any could possibly classify the Holy See as a state. Vatican City State is a state, but not the Holy See.
On your other question, a list of resident missions is given at List of diplomatic missions of the Holy See, and a longer list of countries with which the Holy See has diplomatic relations is given at Nuncio#List of diplomatic posts of the Holy See. (In the same way, the red part of the map on the first page does not cover all the countries marked green in the map at Foreign relations of the Holy See#Bilateral relations.) Comparing the two lists should give you an indication of which countries have a resident diplomatic representative of the Holy See and which a non-resident.
If you want a list by me, the following is my effort. It was made two or three years ago and may not be fully up to date. Names of countries are in Italian. I have ignored Vietnam, because of its uncertain status. You may know that an agreement has been reached for the appointment of a non-resident papal representative (initially, if I remember right, non-diplomatic), but we don't know where he will reside. Symbols in the list are as follows:
> non-resident (the papal representative lives in the country at the start of the line)
= a separate address from that of the mission at the start of the line is given in the Annuario Pontificio, indicating that the papal representative has a residence in the second place also and presumably spends part of the year there. Where it is not clear which (if either) is the primary mission, I have put them in alphabetical order.
~ the nuncio is dean of the diplomatic corps from the moment he presents his credentials
* the nuncio becomes dean of the diplomatic corps only if he becomes the senior resident diplomatic representative of ambassadorial rank (the ordinary rule, with no extraordinary privilege for the nuncio)
^ non-diplomatic status (an apostolic delegate, not a nuncio). I have now added, I hope, italics to each of these non-diplomatic missions. The geographical areas indicated for the competence of apostolic delegates may correspond to those of states, larger regions, or even smaller.
  1. Albania*
  2. Algeria* >Tunisia*
  3. Angola* >São Tomé e Príncipe*
  4. Argentina~
  5. Australia*
  6. Austria~
  7. Bangladesh*
  8. Belgio~ >Lussemburgo~
  9. Benin* >Togo*
  10. Bielorussia*
  11. Bolivia~
  12. Bosnia ed Erzegovina*
  13. Brasile~
  14. Bulgaria*
  15. Burkina Faso* >Niger*
  16. Burundi*
  17. Camerun* >Guinea Equatoriale*
  18. Canada*
  19. Cile~
  20. Cina (chargé d'affaires only, no nuncio)
  21. Colombia~
  22. Congo (Rep)* =Gabon*
  23. Congo (RepDem)*
  24. Corea* >Mongolia*
  25. Costa d'Avorio~
  26. Costa Rica~
  27. Croazia~
  28. Cuba*
  29. Ecuador~
  30. Egitto*
  31. El Salvador~ >Belize*
  32. Etiopia* >Gibuti* >Somalia^
  33. Filippine~
  34. Francia~
  35. Georgia* >Armenia* >Azerbaigian*
  36. Germania~
  37. Gerusalemme e Palestina^ =Cipro* =Israele*
  38. Ghana*
  39. Giappone*
  40. Giordania* =Iraq*
  41. Gran Bretagna*
  42. Grecia*
  43. Guatemala~
  44. Guinea >Gambia* >Liberia* >Sierra Leone*
  45. Haiti~
  46. Honduras~
  47. India* >Nepal*
  48. Indonesia* <Timor Est* >Timor Est*
  49. Iran*
  50. Irlanda~
  51. Italia~ >San Marino~
  52. Kazakhstan* =Kyrgystan* =Tadjikistan* =Uzbekistan*
  53. Kenya*
  54. Kuwait* >Bahrain* >Emirati Uniti Arabi* >Penisola Arabica^ >Qatar* >Yemen*
  55. Libano~
  56. Lituania~ >Estonia* >Lettonia*
  57. Madagascar* >Maurizio* >Seychelles*
  58. Malta~ >Libia*
  59. Marocco*
  60. Messico*
  61. Montenegro*
  62. Mozambico*
  63. Nicaragua~
  64. Nigeria*
  65. Nuova Zelanda* >Isole Cook* >Isole Fiji* >Isole Marshall* >Kiribati* >Micronesia* >Nauru* >Oceano Pacifico^ >Palau* >Samoa* >Tonga* >Vanuatu*
  66. Paesi Bassi*
  67. Pakistan*
  68. Panamá~
  69. Papua Nuova Guinea* >Isole Salomone*
  70. Paraguay~
  71. Perù~
  72. Polonia~
  73. Portogallo~
  74. Rep. Ceca~
  75. Rep. Centroafricana* =Ciad*
  76. Rep. Dominicana~ (>Puerto Rico^)
  77. Romania* >Moldova*
  78. Russia*
  79. Rwanda~
  80. Senegal* >Capo Verde* >Guinea-Bissau* >Malì* >Mauritania^
  81. Serbia*
  82. Siria*
  83. Slovacchia~
  84. Slovenia~ >Macedonia*
  85. Spagna~ >Andorra~
  86. Sri Lanka*
  87. Stati Uniti d'America*
  88. Sud Africa* >Botswana^ >Lesotho* >Namibia* >Swaziland*
  89. Sudan* >Eritrea*
  90. Svezia* >Danimarca* >Finlandia* >Islanda* >Norvegia*
  91. Svizzera~ >Liechtenstein~
  92. Tanzania*
  93. Thailandia* >Brunei Darussalam^ >Cambogia* >Laos^ >Malaysia^ >Myanmar^ =Singapore*
  94. Trinidad e Tobago* >Antigua e Barbuda* >Antille^ >Bahamas* >Barbados* >Dominica* >Giamaica* >Guyana* >Grenada* >Saint Kitts and Nevis* >Santa Lucia* >San Vincenzo e Grenadine* >Suriname*
  95. Turchia* >Turkmenistan*
  96. Ucraina*
  97. Uganda*
  98. Ungheria~
  99. Uruguay~
  100. Venezuela~
  101. Zambia* >Malawi*
  102. Zimbabwe*
  103. Comunità Europee~ >*Monaco

End. Esoglou (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I will go trough it later, to find out where the number discrepancy comes (eg. what states have no mission and no non-resident nuncio). Just two questions - "Indonesia < Timor-Leste" is with a reversed "<" (instead of ">" like all others) - mistake or this means something? And also, SMOM - is there a "mission to SMOM" or "accredited nuncio", etc.? Alinor (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
A mistake.
No mission or nuncio to SMOM, although there is a mission and ambassador from SMOM to Holy See. Esoglou (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. I will check the list for if/who are the other no-mission-and-no-accreditation case, but do you have some source explaining why SMOM doesn't have someone accredited? Looking here shows it is in "diplomatic relations" (like the EC - that has a mission) and that even "special relations" PLO has some "office with director". Alinor (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
After the establishment of diplomatic relations, some time passes before either side actually sets up a mission. Until then, contacts continue to be from foreign ministry to foreign ministry. Several small states have never set up missions, even non-resident ones, accredited to most of the subjects of international law (states as well as Holy See) with which they have such relations, although the other side may have established a mission to that state decades ago, even a resident mission. In the other direction, for a long time the Holy See had no diplomatic mission accredited to London, while London did have a mission accredited to the Holy See. As is the SMOM situation now. Esoglou (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. This still seems strange as for the Holy See this is the only case of diplomatic relations without accredited representative (I checked all the rest - your list matches the 178).
A few questions after going trough the list. China/Taiwan is not marked with ~/* (I understand the charge d'afairs has neither status, but what about the nuncios before him?). Guinea is not market with ~/*. The row " Thailandia* >Brunei Darussalam^ >Cambogia* >Laos^ >Malaysia^ >Myanmar^ =Singapore* " has both ">" and "=" signs - what does it mean? In the source above it is mentioned that Comoros has non-diplomatic representative - in your list it is missing. In the source above it is mentioned that Botswana has diplomatic relations - in your list it is non-diplomatic. Maybe not updated? Alinor (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I am preparing a world map colored according to resident/non-resident and ~/*. Alinor (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
When there was a top-ranking head of mission in Taipei - a long time ago - he was neither a nuncio with asterisk nor a nuncio with precedence over other accredited diplomats: he was a pro-nuncio, a title no longer used; if a nuncio were to be appointed today, he would doubtless not be privileged with precedence. Guinea: with asterisk (not privileged). In the Thailandia row, ^ indicates an apostolic delegation (non-diplomatic representation); > indicates non-resident (no address in that country); = indicates that an address within the country is given for a residence of the papal representative in that country. I warned you that I made out that list over a year ago: I would say it remained updated to June last year. The only further updating I did before posting it here was to indicate that Russia now has diplomatic relations. I recall that, since I made out the list, I read of the establishment of diplomatic relations with Botswana. I don't recall reading about Comoros. If you can get a look at this year's Annuario Pontificio, you can find out for yourself. Unfortunately, I only have the 2008 edition, which does not mention Comoros, gives Botswana as an apostolic delegation, and gives Russia as having a resident representative of the Holy See with the rank of nuncio but not a member of the Moscow diplomatic corps. Esoglou (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. So, if I understand correctly there is a nuncio with residences in Thailand and Singapore, and he is accredited to Cambodia, and there are non-diplomatic representations in Brunei, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar?
About Comoros I mean this [3]: " in seven other countries there are apostolic delegates, pontifical representatives to the local Catholic communities but not to the government. Three of these countries are African: the Comoros, Mauritania, and Somalia. And four of them are Asian: Brunei, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar." Alinor (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I put the map here: Nuncio#List_of_diplomatic_posts_of_the_Holy_See. Alinor (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC) and a map depending on pre/post-1929 here. Alinor (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A note published today by the Holy See Press Office indicates that the Holy See now has a mission with a permanent address in Malawi. In the list above, ">Malawi" should therefore be changed to "=Malawi". Two days ago, the Press Office announced the appointment of two new nuncios, but without indicating where they are to exercise their functions. Presumably the agrément is awaited of the governments of the countries to which they are destined and/or that of the governments of the countries to which their predecessors are being transferred. When that is clarified, perhaps there will also be an announcement of the appointment of someone as the non-resident representative to the government of Vietnam (a diplomatic representative, not an apostolic delegate). That will also require an adjustment to the list above, which ideally should be checked, when possible, against the 2011 Annuario Pontificio, the annual publication that usually becomes available no later than March. Esoglou (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The expected announcement about Vietnam has come today. The "non-resident papal representative to Vietnam" (neither a nuncio nor an apostolic delegate, and so something like what there was until recently in Russia, except that that representative was resident) is the nuncio to Indonesia, who has had his remit extended to cover Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore also, areas that have been removed from the care of the papal representative to Thailand. That means that the list above requires adjustments to line 48, which becomes:
Indonesia* >Brunei Darussalam^ >Malaysia^ =Singapore* >Timor Est* >Vietnam(Non-Resident Papal Representative);
and to line 93, which becomes:
Thailandia* >Cambogia* >Laos^ >Myanmar^

Nazi Gold in see also.

Greetings, i have since added 'nazi gold' into the 'See Also' area of the article as it is well documented (even on other wikipedia pages such as the vatican city bank page) that the vatican has several hundred million dollars worth of nazi gold for 'safekeeping'. I therefore thought it important to list 'nazi gold' on the 'see also' section of the article as it is related.

Kind regards, anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.151.2 (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference?

It isn't very clear as to how the Holy See and the State of the Vatican City are different. You say they are repeatedly in both articles, but you don't explain how. Could you please clarify this? Thank you for your time and understanding.--CafeDelKevin (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Holy See is not a city, Vatican City is. Though headed by the same person, they are in reality as different as the Archdiocese of New York and New York City are. So too the Church of England is distinct from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, though headed by the same individual. Esoglou (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, basically, the Holy See is an institution, the Vatican City is a tiny state that the institution has control over. The Holy See could, and did, exist without the State of the Vatican City, and countries could, and did, have diplomatic relations with the Holy See without it having a state. --Cam (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Holy See is a collective term for all territories and people that the Church has control over, Vatican City is where the operations are based in. InTheRevolution2 (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Holy See is a legal, internationally recognized sovereign state established in antiquity by the apostles. It emerged to have its sovereign powers upon exercising the temporal powers of the Pope over the central Italian peninsula centuries ago. Thus, it began operating as a sovereign state (comparable to a medieval kingdom) ruled by a monarch and the Holy See serving its national government until the Italian Unification. The Vatican City is just a territory established by a concordat known as the Lateran Treaty, as opposed to a sovereign state. --112.206.61.82 (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The use of "the Vatican" to refer to the governance of the Roman Catholic Church is not incorrect. It is a case of metonymy, not a literal reference to the Vatican City state. Underalms (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
As far as I understand it they are different because the Holy See says they are different. I am unconvinced that the distinction holds external validity. What if the government of the UK said it was distinct from the UK itself? Would that make it so? Or if you prefer another analogy; what if the UK´s Foreign Office said they are distinct entity to the government of the UK? Aside from the legal distinctions set in the Lateran Treaty and the declarations of other sovereign states and legal scholars, the Vatican City State and the Holy see, combined, conform exactly to our normal definitions of a nation state with a sovereign territory. If there is a substantive difference, rather than just a matter of nomenclature and history, then it needs to be explained. Despite good references to other bodies and scholars supporting the distinction, the distinction itself is not explained properly and remains highly debatable. Simply saying they are distinct and here are some sources supporting it does not cut it for an encyclopedia. How are they distinct? Why is this different for the Vatican and not for other states? I am no expert on the status of the Holy See so I ask if there is debate on this issue at all? Are there not also sources that dispute the distinction? I am aware of legal cases that involve arguments over sovereign immunity so I would imagine that there are disputes on this matter, can they be found and added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.199.26 (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The main difference between the two entities is that the Holy See owns the Vatican. Vatican city is a new state of patrimonial kind which was created in 1929 to give independence and sovereignty to the Holy See. If Italy in the future would denounce the Lateran treaty and occupy the Vatican, this would cease its existence, but the Holy See would continue to exist, as it continued its existence between 1870 and 1929, after that Italy had annexed the Papal States with Rome (and the Vatican itself, which at that times was part of the Roman rione Borgo). I am not aware that among scholars there are currently disputes about the status of Vatican and Holy See. About that Cfr. Enrico Vitali, Antonio G. Chizzoniti, Manuale Breve di Diritto Ecclesiastico, Milano, Giuffrè, 2010, p. 76, ISBN 88-14-15846-0. Alex2006 (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply but I still don´t see there is any more than a nominal distinction. It still conforms to the normal understanding of a government with a sovereign territory, even if all the world says it is different, it isn´t unless there is something substantive that can be said to be different. There have been many governments in exile that have existed without a territory so I don´t think that meets the criterion, nor does the Holy See´s role in the Catholic Church which has many analogues in established churches. I don´t dispute that people consider it different but I remain very puzzled that the distinction isn´t debated. I would imagine that the international recognition cited in the article is probably more of an exercise in diplomacy (not wanting to cause unnecessary controversy) than a real belief that the Holy See is really distinct from the Vatican City State. Recognizing the Holy See as a sovereign power while separating it from its sovereign territory seems completely pointless but probably isn´t worth arguing about. Having said that though, is there some advantage to the Holy See in this arrangement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.199.26 (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Technically, the Holy See does not require a specific location in order to function. Like the Dalai Lama does not have to be in Lhasa.
Vatican city is just an enclave in which the Holy See resides, in which there is a church and a museum. In the other examples, the UK government cannot exercise it's function outside of the UK. It must be in the UK. If the Prime Minister of the UK went to Rio and stayed there, after awhile, his/her party would elect a new P,M.
It is more complicated than that, but this explanation is "close enough." Student7 (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Buying islands in the Pacific

The article should maybe try to reflect on whether buying islands in the Pacific might procure a greater legal security to the Holy See. Such islands would presumably be listed along with other properties of the Holy See, which already include churches in Italy. The existence of small native populations in these islands might serve as a practical socio-political replacement to the Pontifical States, who were also known as the States of the Holy See. ADM (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources which discuss this? WP:NOR requires that content comes from reliable sources, and WP:CRYSTAL discourages speculation about hypothetical future conditions.Majoreditor (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Israel

I have in mind that the relations to Israel once were not diplomatic relations, but "relations of a special nature", too. Is that correct? If so, does anyone know when that changed? --84.140.149.182 (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Before the establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel, there were no "relations of a special nature" such as now exist with Russia, with a nuncio in Moscow who is not a full member of the diplomatic corps and a Russian ambassador sent to the Holy See without being a full member of the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See. An apostolic delegation - you can read towards the end of the "Terminology and History" section of the Nuncio article about what an apostolic delegation is - was set up for "Jerusalem and Palestine" on 11 February 1948. It still exists. It obviously was not set up specifically for relations with Israel. At one point of time, before diplomatic relations with Israel were set up, there was a campaign in the United States to get people to write to the Pope to complain that the Holy See did not recognize Israel. That claim was of course baseless. The Holy See recognized Israel, for instance by receiving in official visits Israeli prime ministers, without having diplomatic relations with the state. The situation was exactly as it is now between the Holy See and, for instance, Saudi Arabia. Lima (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

foreign relations

Is there another page, or, if not, should there be a section on the foreign relations of the vatican? not to mention a background to the history of the external affairs of the vatican, which is quite strong. Lihaas (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE for consensus. Lihaas (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more specific about what you are proposing? --Anietor (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the whole discussion on the foreign relations of the Holy See should be left to the specific page. The section on Diplomacy should be shortened (and the section on international organizations should be deleted) from this page to avoid repetition.BonifaciusVIII (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of the term Holy See

I was hoping that someone could add an etymology section to this article, specifically explaining the word "See". I've never seen the word "see" used to describe a plot of land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.0.133 (talk • contribs)

For etymology, look up episcopal see, referred to at the start of the article. To avoid confusion between the Holy See (central episcopal see of the Catholic Church) and the plot of land known as Vatican City, which is now the Pope's residence (Popes previously resided in various places such as the Lateran and the Quirinal in Rome, Orvieto, Avignon), I have added some words to the article. Lima (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Diocese of Rome

I guess making a distinction between the Diocese of Rome and the Holy See is fine as far as it goes, but it seems to me that some mention must be made of the diocese over which the see presides. Let me point out that Diocese of Rome currently redirects to Holy See. That seems to be natural to me, although I would have no objection to having it redirect to Bishop of Rome instead.

Seeing as Diocese of Rome redirects here, it seems to me that something should be said about the actual diocese in this article. Rwflammang (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem; I am interested in the organization of the diocese of Rome itself, (if there is such a thing) and can't find it. Is "Holy See" a reference to the diocese of Rome, or to the RC Church as a whole, or both? As far as articles are concerned, I'd favour separate pages for the Church as a whole, and the Church in the city of Rome, if only because a page on Rome itself would fit better with all the other pages on RC diocese' . Moonraker12 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
PS An analogy here maybe is the distinction between the The Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster in Britain. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Name Resolution

I have given it some thought: how about we just put a hat note at the top of the page? It seems like a simple idea — it's not that unnoticeable and yet it isn't as unconvenient as a disam. page is. It should just say something like "for the other Holy Sees in the Christian Orthodox Church, see Episcopal See". Is anyone with me here? ~ Troy 19:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mean: "for the other holy sees ..." There is only one entity in international law (and Wikipedia is not an exclusively religious reference source) that is known as the Holy See (upper-case letters). And are you suggesting that episcopal sees other than those of the "Christian Orthodox Church" are not holy?
The opening paragraph explains that the subject of this article is not directly the episcopal see of Rome. There is at present no article in Wikipedia about that, although there are many on other episcopal sees, as you can see by looking at List of the dioceses of the Orthodox Church in America, List of Roman Catholic archdioceses, List of Roman Catholic dioceses, etc., and clicking on those not redlinked. Lima 04:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're mostly correct. There is a redirect in place from Archdiocese of Roma (bad title, I know, this is the english 'pedia) to Bishop of Rome. For most Catholic dioceses, we have a single article for both the bishops and the diocese, with the list of bishops split off when it gets to be too long. There's no consistency of when that point is reached; for example, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Goa and Daman redirects to Patriarch of the East Indies, which lists 38 ordinaries, while Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco are seperate articles, even though there have only been 8 ordinaries.
Anyway, much of what would be in an Archdiocese of Rome article curently resides in Cardinal Vicar, although it is very out of date. Gentgeen 07:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to a hat note at the top. Per Lima, "for other holy sees" should be lowercase. What about the phrase: "For other holy sees, see Episcopal See". That way we don't single out any one church, since several of them use the term "see" and "holy see" (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, etc.) and some of them (such as Anglicans) don't normally refer to themselves as Orthodox. Majoreditor 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
In "For other holy sees, see Episcopal See", doesn't the addition of the adjective suggest that there are also unholy sees! I have now proposed a change in the opening text to make it clear that the internationally-accepted use of "Holy See" to refer to the central government of the Catholic Church does not imply a denial of the existence of other holy sees, indeed thousands of them. Lima 04:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to not write "Holy Sees" in capital letters. True, the Holy See of Rome has it in capitalized letters, but so do others. Look at this: Holy See of Cilicia, Holy See of St. Mark, ...I could go on for a while if I want to, but I better not. ~ Troy 17:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's OK to do so, as long as it's a proper title, per WP:MoS. Majoreditor (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't it be called "See of St. Peter"? There are other "Holy Sees" (ie: See of St. Mark). This might be offensive to both the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox. "See" (in this case) means "Chair" of the chief Bishop who "oversees" his diocese. And the term "Holy See" shouldn't be strictly applied to Rome. Even so, the term "Pope" wasn't used by Rome until centuries after the Coptic Pope (Pope Heraclas was called this before anyone else even). 207.6.229.114 19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The term "Holy See" is used internationally, for example, by the United Nations, and is certainly much more common in usage than the term "See of Saint Peter". Majoreditor 01:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Even so, that wouldn't make it the correct title (besides, this See is the only "political one"). There are other "Holy Sees", and therefore, "See of St. Peter" is far more accurate. The UN knows very well that only one of them is involved in politics. Also, in English, everyone never wants to be more specific (even if it is more accurate) because they're just a bit too lazy. Go ahead & call me crazy, but I think it need be specific for the better. So overall, in response to that: TOOSHAY. 207.6.229.114 01:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It is a matter of fact that the exact term Holy See is used for international and diplomatic purposes. See the name of their U.N. Mission, the term used by the government of Canada, the term used by the U.S. government, the term used in the World Factbook -- just to cite a few. Can you cite reliable sources which refer to the entity in question as the See of Saint Peter? Majoreditor 02:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the term "Holy See" is recognized internationally as referring to the central government of the Catholic Church. In fact, the revised opening sentence is rather odd in that it "translates" See of St. Peter as Sancta Sedes, and you don't need to know much latin to realize that St. Peter doesn't appear there at all. The Holy See is the term the Vatican uses itself, as reflected in the first "References" link. I understand the point that "Holy" may be applied to other episcopal sees. But Holy See is the commonly used title for the Vatican's government. It is used by that body itself, other nations (U.S. embassador to the Holy See [4], British embassador to the Holy See [5]), international bodies (United Nations [6]), and even other religous bodies. Perhaps some may indeed find it "offensive", but it is not WP's place to make political statements itself by changing names of organizations or bodies. Also, there should have been more time for discussion before making such a change.--Anietor 02:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The politics don't matter as much as other things might. The anonymous person said "There are other 'Holy Sees' (ie: See of St. Mark)". Note the article Apostolic See. Rome isn't the centre of everything. There are others. The new name (which I put up) is "See of St Peter" & rightfully so. Even the Catholics admit it. You want sources? Here you go [7] [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], etc etc... Also, you can tell that it is the (holy) see of St Peter. How can you say it isn't of St Peter? Note: links 6 & 7 say "see of rome", which is also specific enough. Simply put, sticking in "Holy See" isn't enough. And, frankly, what politicians or even the general public might say isn't always the proper way of saying it. Please consider the other view. Thanks. ~ Troy 02:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm telling you guys, THERE ARE OTHER HOLY SEES. And none of you ever once responded once to that. As far as your all concerned, it seems, the other Holy Sees all just a bunch of pawns that are "under the power of Rome". Might I remind you that you never once said that "See of Peter" or "See of Rome" are wrong. Prove it. 207.6.229.114 02:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't ask us to prove a negative, 207.6.229.114. Holy See is the official title used by that body, recognized by other political entities. As a political entity itself, it IS relevant what politicians think. And what makes this argument rather silly is that Holy See links to this article. If Holy See links to it, and it is itself the official title, this is all a rather bizarre exercise in political correctness gone amuck. --Anietor 03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Anietor. Why use an obscure term when the common use for the term Holy See refers to the government of the Catholic Church?
I'm open to suggestions, such as a disamb. page. Does Troy or the anon editor -- or anyone else -- wish to make any suggestions?Majoreditor 03:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
"Holy See" (in this case) refers to the political organization. "See of Rome" or "See of St Peter" refers to religious affairs too. And to answer Anietor's question: "Holy See" probably only links to the current page because it is rather impossible to change all of the links' respective title. However, I'm all for a disambig. page. Maybe "Holy See" should be redirected to this disam. and include this & other Sees. The disambiguation page can have "See of St Peter" in the list, coupled with other Sees/Patriarchates. Looking forward to finding the problem's resolution. 207.6.229.114 03:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Anietor, Troy, others -- your thoughts? Majoreditor 03:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be disambiguation page called "Holy See (Disambiguation)". If there's a link to "Holy See", it should redirect you to that page. Just an idea. ~ Troy 03:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a disambiguation page is theoretically a good idea. My only hesitation has to do with what other pages would be included. It doesn't appear that any other "see" has an article. Does that matter? --Anietor 04:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
We could create other "See" articles using the Patriarchate articles. OR, we could simply link it to the Patriarchate articles (the terms "See" & "Patriarchate" are sometimes used interchangeably).207.6.229.114 04:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm undecided on using a disambiguation page. However, if we were to go that route, I would suggest two forks, one leading to Holy See (Vatican) and the other leading to Episcopal See. As mentioned in other talk pages, the term "see" or "holy see" can can be applied in its broadest sense to any eparchy, diocese or episcpoate. There's just too many to list. Plus, there is (unfortunately) no common agreement on the exact number of patriarchates. Moscow, Lisbon, etc. could take offense.
Thoughts? Majoreditor 04:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Anything that isn't directly called "Holy See" is likely to be an improvement from when I first looked at the article. If we use Majoreditor's idea, might I suggest linking the second fork as "Apostolic See" instead of "Episcopal See"? The Patriarchs are the only successors to the Apostles, but bishops are second-ranking clergy members & form a different line (which isn't equal to Apostolic succession). Any ideas on this opinion? ~ Troy 04:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to include Episcopal See, unless you can cite references showing that the term "Holy See" is used exclusively by patriarchs and not by bishops.
I don't think that apostolic succession is an issue here. In the RCC and Eastern Orthodox Church, all validly ordained bishops claim Apostolic succession. Also, Eastern Orthodox may take offense to calling bishops "second-ranking clergy members & form a different line (which isn't equal to Apostolic succession)." Majoreditor 05:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
(Note, Majoreditor and I had an edit conflict. This comment is directed to Troy) My friend, you need to learn a few things. First, our policy for moving pages states: In several cases, you should list pages that you want to have renamed / moved at Wikipedia:Requested moves, especially ... if you believe the move might be controversial, if you are unsure about the best page name. Before the page was moved, there was opposition to the suggested name change, with reasonable reasons expressed, therefore it would be reasonable to assume the proposed move would be controversial. Secondly, as of your last post, two days after the page was moved, there isn't a concrete proposal for the naming of these articles, it seems you're not sure about the best page name. I have restored it to its previous title until the situation is resolved.
Now then, your statement that only the incumbents of the five ancient patriarchates are "successors of the apostles" is your point of view, but is not a universal one. St. John was bishop of Ephesus, which isn't a patriarchate. St. Thomas founded the Churches in India, none of which are patriarchal. Bartholomew and Jude established the Church in Armenia, which is not one of the five ancient Patriarchates. Finally, Alexandria was founded by St. Mark, who was not one of the twelve. The idea that "bishops are second-ranking clergy" has no validity from a Catholic viewpoint, as Canon 330 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states, Just as by the Lord’s decision Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a like manner the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, are united among themselves. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (857), "The Church ... continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ's return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops." Gentgeen 05:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have moved it before there was a response from the opposition (I think it might have been the 27th or the 28th of July). Anyway, I have realized that I should have given it more time and some more thought on how controversial it might be. However, I have already given my opinion on making a disamb. page. I've had enough. So, I'll let you decide (so far, there hasn't been major opposition on the idea of a disam. page). As for the move I made, my bad. But, as you can see, I'm quite convinced on how we link the other patriarchates. I assure you, I really don't have any other ideas asides from the one above. ~ Troy 03:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is rather like the arguemtns over the name Royal Navy, in conventional english usage, if someone refers simply to the Royal navy they almost certianly mean the naval forces fo the United Kingdom, even though the literal translation of several country's own name for their anvy would be "Royal navy", when rendered into english they are generally translated as royal Norwegian Navy, etc, and even where the navies are english speaking, a similar identifier is used, Royal Australian navy etc. Someone talking in English about the Holy See is almost certain to be referring to Rome, with other forms beging more fully qualified. In the rare case wehre a suer is actually wanting a different Holy See, they can be directed to a disambiguation page using a hat note at the top of the page. David Underdown 10:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Archbishopric

Why isn't the Pope an archbishop? Certainly the Holy See is a diocese of importance within the Church; and yet strangely, the pontiff remains merely the Bishop of Rome. Any particular reason why? VolatileChemical 13:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking why Wikipedia doesn't list him as an Archbishop or why the Catholic Church doesn't use that title? The answer to the first is because the Pope is generally not called an Archbishop so it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to refer to him as such (at least in my opinion). As to why the church doesn't use the term I don't think I can give a very satisfactory answer. In actuality, he is an Archbishop. He is the Metropolitan of the the Roman province which is the ecclesiastical territory of the actual (arch)diocese of Rome. I belive he is not called Archbishop of Rome very often because the simpler title Bishop of Rome is older and more direct. His authority over the Catholic Church is not directly tied to his archepiscopal authority over the Roman Metropolitan province, but rather to his position as the successor of Peter. As I said I don't think that this is a very satisfactory answer but I hope it helps.--Kjrjr (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See also

Wikipedia articles generally have a "See also" section. Very often, the articles listed in the "See also" section are also linked to within the article, sometimes more than once. Many links within articles merely explain some particular word and do not lead to the articles on cognate matters that the "See also" section is meant to point to; and not everybody will click on every link given within an article. So a link within an article is by no means the same as a mention in the "See also" section. I see no reason why this article should be different from the generality of Wikipedia articles. But perhaps Srnec can explain why this article should be treated differently. Lima 04:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just think that "See also" sections should usually be avoided. The links they contain are often arbitrary or POV. If the links appear in the text it is also clear to the reader what the connection is between the articles from context. In short, I see no reason why the "generality" of Wikipedia should be continued. Srnec 03:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I have made clear my disagreement with Srnec's view about "See also" sections in Wikipedia articles: I have frequently found interesting articles through such sections. If Srnec were to extend to other articles the excision he has again operated here, he would, I feel sure, arouse a negative reaction. This presumably little-visited page is not the best place to hold a discussion on Srnec's view. So, while I think his action has lessened the worth of this article, I choose to overlook its disimprovement and abstain from further comment on this Talk page and from further action on this article page. It would be good if Srnec would test the effect of applying his policy to an article on which there is much greater activity. Even if he does, I do not intend to comment further, even there. Lima 07:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement on general use of "Holy See"

I recently revised the second paragraph to

In its broadest sense the term Holy See can be synonymous with the title Apostolic See, that is, any see founded by any of the Apostles. Although this term is sometimes used to refer to an Eastern Orthodox see, in the English-speaking world the term is most commonly reserved for the Bishop of Rome who, by Roman Catholic tradition, succeeds the chief of the Apostles, Saint Peter.

User Lima subsequently changed this to

Although every episcopal see is seen as holy and the Eastern Orthodox Church constantly applies the adjective "holy" or "sacred" (ἱερά) to all its sees, "the Holy See" (in the singular and with the definite article and no other specification) normally refers to the see of Rome, which is also called "the Apostolic See". While "Apostolic See" can refer to any see founded by any of the Apostles, the term is in this case used to refer to the see of the bishop seen as successor of the chief of the Apostles, Saint Peter.

I disagree with this edit but it's not a huge deal. I'll register my concern here and anybody else who might have an opinion can comment or revise. The term "Holy See" is used by other patriarchs (e.g. [example of Holy See of Constantinople], [example of Holy See of Jerusalem], [example of Holy See of Alexandria]). The "appropriation" of the term by the Bishop of Rome has is not and never has been generally recognized in the Christian community. Although in Western culture (whose history heavily owes to the Roman Catholic Church) it is common to reserve the term for the Pope, this is strictly speaking an inappropriate (and insulting to the others) use of the term, despite what the RCC might say about it. I had attempted to compromise in my revision by only making a small mention of the more general use of the term but Lima has essentially wiped out all the meaning of what I said.

My point is that the article is in reality rather POV and a little more attempt at neutrality, particularly on religious subjects, is appropriate.

--Mcorazao 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have in front of me the announcements on the last pages of the February 2007 official gazette of the Orthodox Church of Greece Εκκλησία, inviting applications for posts of parish priest etc. They are headed by titles that could be translated into English as: Holy See of Nea Smyrni, Holy See of Corinth, Holy See of Argolida (Argolis, if you prefer the ancient name), Holy See of Messinia, Holy See of Kerkyra, Holy See of Khartoum and All Sudan, etc. I have come across "the holy See of Pittsburgh and the East, ... the holy See of Toledo and the Midwest, ... the holy See of Ottawa and Upstate New York" of the Antiochian Orthodox Church. I have not come across references to any of these as simply "the Holy See". Lima 16:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument. :-) So the argument is that because other Sees are not as arrogant as Rome then Rome wins? --Mcorazao 19:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If find the use of invective disheartening. Needless to say, Rome has always referred to itself as "The Holy See." And despite the historic and often petty disagreements between East and West, I find it instructive that the Patriarchs do not attack Rome for such designation. I would also note that the phrase "The Holy See" is consistent with the honor paid Rome, at least as the first amongst equals, as the inheritor of the patrimony of St. Peter. Regardless of more sensitive sensabilities, nonetheless, the debate is somewhat moot: "The Holy See" is the official and recognized title for the diocese of Rome. Attempts to classify it otherwise merely contradicts the international concensus and defies the essential purpose of an encyclopedia to convey meaningful and useful information to those reading it.Mikhelos 00:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense text within article

Could an editor please review the article as there is due to some person nonsense within the article. This is in section 2 of the article. Offending text 'Yo momma is so fat'

Would a lock on this page be appropriate?

Dean Sharpe 23:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RCC vs. CC edit warring

Wikipedia recognizes that both RCC and CC are valid names for the Church, and it doesn't take sides saying one is better than the other. In the case of a conflict, we must look to the style of the earliest contributor. In this case RCC was used first by Simon_J_Kissane on 08:12, 14 October 2001. I'd urge editors to just accept this, and find much more productive ways to contribute istead of arguing over a single silly word.--Andrew c 04:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I do endorse the sentiment regarding not getting caught up with terminology I have to disagree here. The original Church of the Roman Empire was known as the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church ("known by many names" so to speak). After the Schism the Western and Eastern Churches both continued using the terms Catholic and Orthodox to refer to themselves and slight the other. As time went on the Western Church tended to favor the use of the term Catholic to imply its unique legitimacy although this use of the name was NEVER acknowledged by the Eastern Churches. The point here is that it is an insult to the rest of the Christian world to use "Catholic Church" to refer to the RCC in a formal context. It would be equally inappropriate for me to refer to myself as the "the only true Christian" and expect others to refer to me this way simply because I said so. --Mcorazao 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening

I reverted the opening to a previous version because the most recent one had a couple of problems.

  1. There is more than one local ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. There are currently at least three: Benedict XVI (diocesan bishop), Cardinal Ruini (vicar general), and Archbishop Luigi Moretti (vicegerens, see CIC c. 134 § 1 and Art. 15 Ecclesia in Urbe). Saying the local ordinary implies that there is only one, and that is incorrect.
  2. The episcopal see and the church it serves are not the same thing. Granted, see can mean many different things depending on the context and the era, but in the sense of this article, holy see either means (1) the office that presides over the diocese of Rome and whose possessor necessarily presides over the ecclesiastical province, the Italian church, the Latin church, and is successor to Simon Peter and presides over the catholic Church or (2) the juridic entity comprised of the office mentioned in #1 and the Roman Curia (CIC c. 361), to the exclusion of the diocese (see Pastor Bonus and Ecclesia in Urbe). The opening sentence seems to suggest that Holy See = diocese of Rome, which is certainly correct in a figurative sense, as in the Bishop is figuratively his diocese and vice versa, but not in a juridic or diplomatic sense, which is the scope of this article.

Pmadrid 09:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Blatently Offensive

Why are you rewrite History? Holy See does not primarily refer to Rome. How self centred can you get?? Please!!! I suggest you write a new Entry - "Holy See of Rome" . It is extremely offensive and biased to say the Holy See is exclusively or primarily "Rome" (old Rome) since it disregards all Historic truth. What happened to the 7 Holy Sees of the Holy Church?

Re-writing history is like burning the books by NAZI Germany. A Holy See was and is in reference to one of the Holy Patriarchates of the Holy Roman Empire of Byzantium in the Early Church. Furthermore the transfer of Rome to the East, namely modern day Istanbul meant that the See of Rome was removed from Old Rome and now was to be found in or granted to New Rome - Nova Roma which till this day is still the title given to the See of Constantinople. Hint: take off your blinkers and you will notice that the centre of the Universe isn't Rome.--203.59.65.175 08:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you go by which sees consider themselves, "holy see", you are forced by and large to Rome. Notice that when civil governments have an embassy with the Pope, it IS NOT an embassy to the Vatican City State, but an Embassy to the Holy See.DaveTroy 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe, furthermore, that Constantinople, Nea Roma, Nova Roma, or any other formulation, does not and cannot implicate the designation "Holy See." Nor does Constantinople make such claim, but refers to itself as the Ecumenical Patriarchate (a title that initially caused some controversy , because of the possible claims to overlordship of the whole Church). Aside from that, your comment implies the subordination of Rome to Constantinople. That position is contrary to the Orthodox Church's own position: while certainly disagreeing with Papal Infalibility, Constantinople and the other Patriarchs acknowledge the preeminence of Rome, as the first amongst equals, and as the direct, apostolic successor to St. Peter, the first of apostles.Mikhelos 00:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Montenegro

I'm interested in monitoring the development of the treatment of the dissolved union of Serbia and Montenegro with regard to the foreign relations of the Vatican and the church hierarchy. See also Talk:Roman Catholicism in Montenegro. --Joy [shallot] 19:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the point?

Lihaas (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

PLO

It also has relations of a special nature with Russia (Mission with an Ambassador) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (Office with a Director).

Is it the PLO or the Palestine Authority?

The Breaking of The Law

Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. (18) see Rom 3,8 This is the legal principle cited as the basis for the enciclical Humanae Vitae and is the foundation for the teaching concerning human fertility .

You may also want to re read your Thomas Aquinas. I think the moral discussion you are searching to ID and use is the principle of double effect. And you are right, it is NEVER moral to use evil means to good ends (as the case you site reminds us, correctly):).DaveTroy 20:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

kidnapping part

This showed up in mid-March:

The Holy See stands as a beacon of moral authority for the Catholic world as well as for people of all religions across the globe. To this day, however, the Holy See has not condemned the kidnapping of the six year old Jewish child Edgardo Mortara in 1858 by Pope Pius IX on the grounds that a housekeeper had secretly baptized him.

Someone else found the kidnapping part troublesome, and I couldn't agree with the "beacon of moral authority" part. How many Buddhists (or Unitarian Universalists, for that matter) refer to the Holy See for morality? That the Pope dictates morality for Catholics is already stated in not so many words near the top of the article. That said, it may be worth a sentence explaining the pervasiveness of the influence of the Holy See. To Christians whose final arbitor of morality is other people rather than the spirit within, I refer you to Romans 10. -- Ke4roh 16:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I can also add that "Pope's" "moral authority" is not regarded as such by the Orthodox Church. Everyone remembers that the "Popes" were behind sending the Fourth Crusade against the city of Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire, the fact that will be never forgotten in Russia and other Orthodox Christianity countries.--Victor V V (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, they "remember" that the Pope sent the Fourth Crusade against Constantinople, because they have been repeating it to each other for centuries. They do not remember that the Pope expressly forbade the crusaders to attack the Byzantine Empire and, though he afterwards accepted the fait accompli, his first reaction on hearing of what happened was furious condemnation (see Pope Innocent III: Reprimand of Papal Legate). Or read the history of the so-called Fourth Crusade at Fourth Crusade: Conquest of Constantinople. Lima (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

removed abuse

I have deleted irrelevant and inflamatory remarks by an unidentified user from this page. Publius 22:09, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Devotional Masses

Can anyone please tell me how to have a devotional mass said at the Vatican? I went on the official website for the Holy See and there was no mention about this although there is an online offerring for Peter's Pence. What I am looking for is this: my Uncle passed away and we usually go to our local parish when someone dies , make an offering at the office, the secretary then writes the name on a list for masses to be said for the deceased person, and then we get a card to give to the family of the deceased stating that there will be a mass said for the deceased on such date(s) and time(s); I just thought it would be cool to have one said at the Vatican instead of the local parish (even though I personally am Agnostic and don't believe in any of this stuff- but it makes the deceased's loved ones feel better so I feel that is good- so, I do it for them, not for my own beliefs). Is there a website where I can "buy" masses to be said at the Vatican for the deceased? Any assistance will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.136 (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge "Diocese of Rome" and "Holy See"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was not merged. Those arguing that the Holy See and the Diocese of Rome are separate entities have, overall, made more substantive arguments that a distinction exists (not merely artificial) — with the former as a "sovereign entity" and the latter as a "metropolitan diocese." El_C 22:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The Holy See is the Diocese of Rome. Also, there's confusion between Vatican city and Holy See in the article and infobox. To explain it simply:

1)the Roman Catholic Church is mainly divided into episcopal sees (jurisdictions led by bishops) called dioceses.

2)The Diocese of Rome, the Holy See, has primacy because the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. And so all the others dioceses are in communiom with Rome and must accept the fact that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.

3)The holy see has state sovereignity over a piece of land in it: that is Vatican City. There, the Pope is not only the Bishop but the Head of State.

If we separate the Diocese of Rome and the Holy See we just contradict the whole point of Roman catholicism. Barjimoa (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you put a template(hatnote) in the article?Manabimasu (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template inserted in both articles. Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Strong Support. Good idea, i Agree (talk) 18:49, 5 june 2019 (UTC)
Note: this editor is currently blocked. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Tentative oppose. Are you sure a distinction is not motivated between the two aspects, Diocese of Rome being the mere ecclesastical ordinariate, and Holy See being the sovereign entity and office (while comprising the first aspect)? PPEMES (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
That's exactly the distinction. It does not ignore their inherent connection, but that does not mean they are wholly the same concept. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 23:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I've read your commnent down there. You kinda made my point that the Holy See is the Diocese of Rome in its role as subject of international law. But I see now why the two articles may remain separated. Barjimoa (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
— User:Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair point Barjimoa (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not the same thing. Elizium23 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The Holy See is a sovereign subject of international law, and from the Catholic theological perspective, a moral person by divine law.[1] The Diocese of Rome, on the other hand, is a canonical entity for the administration and pastoral care of the people within such ecclesiastical territory. The see of Rome is not the same as the diocese as such. The diocese is a particular church within the Latin Church; the Holy See is the legal entity and office, the occupant of which is the Bishop of Rome. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 23:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Clearly there is a great deal of misunderstanding. The proposal is simply factually incorrect. They are not the same. The Holy See is a sovereign entity with diplomatic relations, and civil jurisdiction over Vatican City. The Diocese of Rome is a metropolitan diocese without jurisdiction even over all of the city of Rome. Two very different entities. Manannan67 (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose per others - makes no sense in terms of the actual content. Though the final section "Other exempt (directly subject) sees" at DofR might be better moved here. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
A descent idea. Also a category for the purpose of these entities could be at hand. Would you mind giving it a shot? PPEMES (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - The Diocese of Rome is not the Holy See. The Holy See is the chair of the Bishop of Rome. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose-the sacred and civil governances of Rome have been different in their areas for over 1,000 years.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Uh... you do realize that the Holy See and the Diocese of Rome, despite being distinct entities, are both sacred governances? The civil (Italian) governance of Rome is not at issue here? OK? 2600:8800:1880:D:A87F:747E:7261:620F (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Not exactly. The civil governance of the Vatican City territories, such as it is, falls to the Holy See, which also maintains very wide diplomatic relations with other states. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Vatican City is civil, and the Holy See is spiritual, and they're different, as explained in their respective articles. Therefore this discussion is about two different spiritual governances and not the civil one. 2600:8800:1880:D:A87F:747E:7261:620F (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
          • That's where you're wrong. See http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P19.HTM In this Code the terms Apostolic See or Holy See mean not only the Roman Pontiff, but also, unless the contrary is clear from the nature of things or from the context, the Secretariat of State, the Council for the public affairs of the Church, and the other Institutes of the Roman Curia.. The Roman Curia is included in the Holy See in the Canon law of the Catholic Church. The Roman Curia is their central government. Also see the article Temporal power of the Holy See. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose: The nominator is misinformed; the two are not the same thing. Jdcompguy (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Time to close this after 6 weeks, & clear failure to get consensus for the change. Can someone? Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ CIC 1983, c. 113.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holy_See/Archive_1&oldid=1246002018"