Talk:Churches of Rome/Archive 1

Archive 1

All of them?

If you intend to put all of them, it would be easier just to lift the list from Huelsen (for those before the Renaissance) and supplement it with the others from Armellini. But that's 900 of them; do you really want to do this? (I mean, what's the interest of S. Eugenio, founded though it be by Pope Pius XII?) Bill 12:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think "you" may be referred to me, so I'm going to answer. I am not going to put all the churches of Rome; all I want to do is collect here all the churches that are linked from at least another page in en.wikipedia, or that have media on wikimedia.

So, to use your example, I do not plan to include Pius XII's S. Eugenio, if that church is not named anywhere else in wikipedia. However, if in Pius XII article S. Eugenio is cited (for example because it was the church in which he was buried), I'll add the link.--Panairjdde 15:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah; that makes perfect sense. I'd been watching this for weeks now.... Best, Bill 15:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

(And the temptation to insert a link to S. Eugenio — in honor of the pope's Christian name saint — is almost overwhelming!) Bill

Luckily, Pius XII was buried in St. Peter's. But S. Eugenio is now the Roman church of Opus Dei. Surely that qualifies it for something. --Vicedomino (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest link ("Kunsthistorie")

On examination, this is only 8 of the churches, and despite the face number of images, not a few of them are slight retakes of others; if these links are worth keeping — I'll let others decide — I feel they should appear not here, but under the 8 individual churches. It would be different it there were thirty-five churches represented, say. Bill 20:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the link from this article, and added it to the single churches articles.--Panairjdde 11:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Category renaming: an alert

By the way, there's a proposal afoot, from the Procrustean but uninformed, to rename the Category "Churches in Rome": see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Churches_in_Italy. Bill 23:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

San Martino ai Monti: 3rd or 4th c.?

Richard Krautheimer addresses the issue of the hall next to and adjacent to the 4th century church:

  The purpose of the Hall of six bays has never been well explained. Vielliard   
  and others have seen in it the meeting place of a third century Christian v 
  community, but to us the evidence seems far from sufficient to maintain such 
  an important conclusion. Indeed, there seems to be no concrete evidence of  
  Christian occupation until the beginning of the sixth century. The original 
  purpose of the Hall is more likely to have been commerical; perhaps it was 
  some kind of exchange or small market.

Source: Krautheimer, R. Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae, vol. 3, p. 115.

Krautheimer's view has never been challenged and indeed has become the accepted scholarly opinion on the subject (see Hugo Brandenburg 2005 for a recent scholarly work supporting Krautheimer's position).

The very text you provided reports the positions of other scholars, such as Vielliard, who claim the church is to date to the 3rd century. You cannot deleted this fact.--Panarjedde 11:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In the third century the Roman Church was not a corporate entity and did not have the right to own property. It is not until Constantine that Christianity is made legal and given rights to own property and receive bequests. That is why a third-century building, other than a private person's property built for other purposes, was not possible. Vicedomino (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

S. Marcello al Corso

Hugo Brandenburg (2005) states: "The building might have been completed at the turn of the fifth century and hence belongs to a series of churches erected shortly before the catastrophe of 410" (p. 164). Moreover, the position of most modern scholars is that there are no *identifiable* churches (with the probable exception of SS. Giovanni e Paolo) that were in use as such before 313. For a discussion, see Krautheimer (1937-77), Corpus Basilicarum Christanarum Romae in five volumes. More recent discussions can be found in E.M. Steinby (ed.) (six volumes, 1993-2000), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, s.v.

Cleanup Required

This article requires a thorough cleanup because a lot of work has been done (and published, see below) in the past two decades which disputes earlier scholarship. Moreover, Chris Nyborg's page is cited as a source, but his page is neither reliable nor scholarly, and should not be referred to. Panarjedde has repeatedly interefered with my efforts to make this a better page, so I request others who may be watching this to contribute to this article. -dha1216

"Panarjedde has repeatedly interefered with my efforts to make this a better page"

Did you provide references for your edits? No. So what are you looking for? Do you expect anybody to trust you without references? You are in the wrong place, as here the first rule is verifiability.

So, if you really want to improve this article, provide references when you change the page, not after my requests. And it would be nice (even if not mandatory) to show a little of respect for other editors, who have been working at this article for a long time.

--Panarjedde 19:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be sure to include references in future edits. Shall I provide references for all the churches on the page when I change their foundation dates? TSources are lacking for all the churches. The dates of the foundations are either misleading (are we specifying when they were comissioned to be built or when they were dedicated?) and in any case, we don't know firm dates for the completion of many early churches. For example, was San Marcello built and completed in 309 as this page seemed to imply? Almost certainly not. Our first attestation of this church is not until much later (418). So what date should we put there (Brandenburg suggestions late 4th or early 5th century). In the case of the San Martino ai Monti, we know that the original church was built during the reign of Pope Silvester (314-335) but not precisely when, and definitely not the 3rd century (this would be an important discovery if it were true!). In this instance, do we provide the span of Silvester's reign, or do we say "early 4th century" and have it appear at the beginning of the list -- as if it were the first church ever built in Rome as it does now? Where's the support?

And, finally, just because people have worked on this article "for a long time" does not obscure the fact that the details are misleading and sometimes wrong. Not a single scholarly source is referred to -- but thankfully, we have some person's personal page devoted to the churches of Rome! I'd be happy to replace the current references with a long list of published sources.--dha1216

Yes, you should add references for your edits, even more when they are "controversial", that is changign what is already stated on the page: having the references on the talk page is not enough, as they are part. It would be also nice to keep consistency, that is having the same year here and on the church page. This work should be not difficult, as you were very prompt to change the years in the article, and you coul have done the effort of adding a reference.

As regards your humor about the references I used and the request for respect, please note I am neither stupid nor naive: I never asked you to stop editing this article because I have been working on it for a long time, I simply asked you to show respect, because you are building on the basis of an already existing work, done by someone else.--Panarjedde 10:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know this page was factually accurate in all respects and that any change -- regardless of what our present sources say -- must be cited as proof while the "existing work" has ONE amateur source. What's worse, though, is that you take the Krautheimer quote where he cites the work of an older scholar (Viellard) and, apparently without even reading Viellard, cite him as a source to justify the ridiculous placement of San Martino ai Monti in the 3rd century when it very clearly should be placed in the 4th century at least according to Krautheimer and much more recent scholarship. Are you familiar with the recent scholarship? Do you have access to the Topographicum Urbis Romae, which provides a bibliography current up until the mid-1990s? The more recent scholarship has often cast aside much of the early views and these sources need to be investigated and accounted for by people who work on this (or any other page), including you. Dha1216 23:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If everything you can do is low-quality humor, we can end this conversation here. Krautheimer says that, according to him, the opinion of Viellard is not acceptable. This is what the article now says. If you have something to say on this matter, please do; if you think I appreciate your humor and therefore lose my time with you, you can avoid writing again.--Panarjedde 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Santi Vito, Modesto e Crescenzia

This church is also a titulus, isn't it? At least an ancient church in Rome... José Luiz ^talk 02:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Gross Misstatement

"Only the tituli were allowed to distribute sacraments.[dubious – discuss] The most important priest in a titulus was given the name of Cardinal. Pope Marcellus I (at the beginning of the 4th century) confirmed that the tituli were the only centres of administration in the Church." The four great basilicas also distributed sacraments. Moreover, the Catholic Church believes that there are seven sacraments. Baptism can, in necessity, be administered by anyone, layman or priest. Tituli could not administer Holy Orders; only the Bishop could do that. But in the early centuries it was the Bishop who controlled entry into the Church. The Baptistry was next to the Bishop's Cathedral (as at the Lateran, or Ravenna, or Milan), and baptism was normally administered by the Bishop, not at the tituli by priests. It is wrong to state that "tituli were the only centres of administration in the Church". The Deaconries administered the charitable services of the Roman Church. "The Church" is way to broad a term. Perhaps "the diocese of Rome" is meant. But even then, tituli were only branch offices; the Head Office at the Lateran (later at the Vatican) did the administering. The administering was handled by the Roman Curia.Vicedomino (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Tituli

For the 28 tituli, look at J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio Tomus VIII, pp. 235-237 [It's available in *.pdf at Giovan Domenico Mansi; Philippe Labbe; Jean Baptiste Martin (1762). Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, cujus Johannes Dominicus Mansi et post ipsius mortem Florentius et Venetianus editores ab anno 1758 ad annum 1798 priores triginta unum tomos ediderunt, nunc autem continuatat et absoluta. expensis H. Welter.]. There you will find the list of the signatories to the First Roman Synod of Pope Symmachus in A. D. 499--68 names in all. There are: tituli Matthei, tituli Julii, tituli Tigridae, tituli Crescentianae, tituli Nicomedis, tituli Fasciolae, tituli Vizantii (Byzantii ?), etc. Notice also that three presbyteri sign for San Clemente, and for S. Marcello, and two sign for a number of other tituli. The Archpriest (of all the Roman priests) and another presbyter sign for S. Prassede. Obviously (despite what you read) these are not Cardinals, just priests. Some qualifications need to be introduced into the text, I fear.

BTW, one only gets the number 28 if Titulus Pammachii is counted twice! no. 4 and no. and no. 21. The statement, "a synod held by Pope Symmachus listed all the presbyters participating, as well as the tituli who were present at that time" conceals the fact that there were several priests present for a particular titulus, and that none of them signs himself cardinal or in any way differently from his colleagues from the same titulus. I'm afraid your source, Guruge, has trimmed the evidence to fit the desired outcome, as for example with no. 25: "Titulus Romani (unknown, perhaps either Santa Maria Antiqua or Santa Maria in Domnica; whichever, the "Titulus Cyriaci" was not)".

--Vicedomino (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Julius I

The text of the article says that Julius I divided up the city into 28 tituli in 336. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes says that he became pope on 6 February 337. Seems to be a contradiction. --Vicedomino (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Churches of Rome. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120208035455/http://www.stuardtclarkesrome.com/churchlist.htm to http://www.stuardtclarkesrome.com/churchlist.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060205023949/http://www.stuardtclarkesrome.com:80/churches.htm to http://www.stuardtclarkesrome.com/churches.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Seven Pilgrim Churches of Rome"

It is impossible for Pope Julius to have assigned the tituli to the four basilicas in 336, since S. Maria Maggiore did not yet exist. The number of tituli was still 25. The assignment of 28 tituli is much later. Read Kuttner. --Vicedomino (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Duplicates in the list of churches

I'm wondering why so many churches are mentioned twice in the chronological list. Under the header "Notable churches by construction time" it says that the churches are listed according to the time of their initial construction. Shouldn't each church then be mentioned only once? I understand that dating churches is difficult and it may be difficult to decide which one of the duplicates is under the correct century, but some are listed twice even under the same century such as Sant'Anastasia, Santi Bonifacio e Alessio, San Martino ai Monti, San Sisto Vecchio, Sant'Agata de' Goti, Santi Apostoli, San Lorenzo in Miranda, San Bartolomeo all'Isola. A few of the ones listed under different centuries are Santi Quattro Coronati, San Lorenzo in Lucina, San Crisogono, Santa Maria in Aracoeli, San Lorenzo fuori le Mura, Santa Balbina, Santa Prassede, Santa Francesca Romana, San Lorenzo in Miranda, Santa Maria in Cosmedin and Santa Maria del Popolo. Mjvanhala (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Le vele immobili.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Le vele immobili.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Archbasilica of St. John Lateran HD.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)