Talk:Superior General of the Society of Jesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Superior General or Father General?
I've been examining the text of the bulls incorporating the society and confirming its institute as well as the Constitutions, and I don't see any official usage of "Father General." Instead, I see Praepositus Generalis in Regimini militantis Ecclesiae of Pope Paul III and the same in Exposcit debitum of Pope Julius III, both in the Formula of the Institute. This translates to "Superior General" in English. I also see Praepositus Generalis in part IX chapter 1 of the constitutions and anywhere the Superior General is referred to in the Constitutions.
"Father General" would be renedered in Latin Pater Generalis. I don't see this. In fact, I would relegate this title to the status of a style or form of address but not the formal name of the office as this article claims it to be. It would be equivalent to having "Your Holiness" as the article title for Pope or Bishop of Rome.
For these reasons, I propose moving this article to Superior General of the Society of Jesus. Pmadrid 01:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Further evidence of the office being "Superior General" and the address being "Father General" are two letters from the Holy See's Secretariat of State, dated 8 Apr and 10 June 1995, and a personal letter from the Pope dated 27 Sep 1995. All three are addressed to "Very Reverend Father Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, S.J., Superior General of the Society of Jesus". The letters from the Secretariat then greeted him as "Very Reverend Father General". All three letters are in Appendix Five of Documents of the Thirty-Fourth General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, ISBN 880810-19-0. Pmadrid 01:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Black Pope
I have created a separate entry for the term Black Pope. For the reasons on the talk page (including partial non-overlap) it should be kept separate. Jackiespeel 22:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's just a nickname that will never grow beyond three sentences unless it starts repeating the content of this article. I see no need for a merge. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Savidan, did you mean to actually write "see no need for a separate article", as implied by your first sentence? That would be suggested by the fact that you argue for a merge on Talk:Black Pope. —Lowellian (reply) 14:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)