Talk:Pope Victor I

Black pope

Was he the first black Pope? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphaboi867 (talk • contribs)

No. RickK 06:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

He was White actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdie (talk • contribs)

• Yes he was:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs)

Not Actually!

Pope Victor looked like the people and ancestry of the land from which he came. "Africa". The Syrians, Greeks and Jews which comprised some of the early popes looked like their ancestry as well. The Arian rise in the Catholic Church didn't begin until the latter part of the third century. Even the Roman Empire wasn't converted at large until the fourth century. The first two centuries Catholicism was supported largly by the churches in Africa by of course, "African" people. People of African lineage were involved from the beginning. Refer to ("The Oxford Dictionary of The Popes" Oxford University Press, 1986) for proof that Catholicism is really a world religion. For other blacks popes you should see (Liber Pontificalis Book of the Popes) p. 17 for Victor; p. 40 for Melchiades, sometimes called Miltiades, under whose reign Rome was converted to Catholicism; p.110 for Gelasius, L.R. Loomis, translator. New York 1916. See also (100 Amazing Facts About The Negro With Complete Proof, J. A. Rogers, 1936.) Tom Bailey

Yes actually, Tom Bailey. Africans were indeed involved in the Catholic Church from the beginning, but not black Africans. The people of North Africa are white, and Catholicism didn't spread to Sub-Saharan Africa until the European Age of Exploration brought it there. Don't cite fringe scholars like J.A. Rogers to support your mythistory, because it only discredits you. --Jugbo

Actually, North Africans, like other Mediterranean groups, have been a melting pot of Caucasian and black African populations for thousands of years, and show a range of "racial" features consistent with such mixing. Neither Afrocentric revisionism nor historically Afrophobic US census categories change these historical and biological facts. Kemet 01:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Kemet, Berbers (for the most part) and Europeans don't have much black ancestry. So, rather than "a melting pot of Caucasian and black African populations", it would be more accurate to describe Mediterranean peoples as "Caucasian", with minor (the great majority of the time) sub-Saharan ancestry (the exception being the Tuaregs, who are highly mixed). Also, in addition to the images displayed at the top of the Berbers page, this site features pictures of Berbers that don't really display "a range of 'racial' features consistent with such mixing [of 'Caucasian and black African populations']" (the exception, again, being the Tuaregs). --Jugbo 03:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Jugbo, where are you getting your information from about Berbers or Europeans not having African or black ancestry. Do you not know that all life originated from Africa? Do you not know that Essau was the brother of Jacob and born white. Please let's keep the racism out of articles. St. Victor was a dark skinned African. I won't label him as black or white because this would cause me to submit to racist views. I don't think you should either. Labeling Mediterraneans as Caucasian follows this same racist attitude. Mediterraneans surely wouldn't agree with you. And just because you show a website with similar racist views doesn't make it true. It is evident that these people have no idea of their true ancestry due to indoctrination. Do you not know that it is possible for a dark skinned and a light skinned baby to be born as twins from the same parents. Please cease with this racism. It has no place on Wikipedia. In addition J.A. Rogers is a respected scholar. You are only making yourself look bad saying quoting him discredits someone. What are your accomplishments in comparison to his for you to make such a statement. Rogers has done more for humanity than you have I'm sure.--Gnosis 07:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. You are misquoting the Old Testament as a source for your confused racialist agenda. Koalorka (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

After some of my research on Pope Gelasius for a class, I found the document, The Three African Popes by Millicent Browne and published in The Western Journal of Black Studies. In it I found the only source to make any comment on origin for any of these three men. In this and other sources, there is no mention of race, only that they were from Africa. To seek to define them further is very hard without more evidence. Please be sure to include sources and your claims will be happily uncontested. Stealthound (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Original Catholic Encyclopedia (which can be viewed online) lists Victor as of African descent. Not African born of Roman descent. Gelasius was listed born in Rome of African descent. This is clear as there would be no need to list him as Roman born of Roman descent. If Victor had been of Roman descent, it would have said born in Africa of Roman descent. The same clarity that was given to Gelasius albeit in reverse. It also states that Militiades was a native of Africa. You cannot be native to Africa and of a Roman colony birth at the same time. Also see "The Oxford Dictionary of The Popes" Oxford University Press copyright 1986 Tom 02/12/10

Image Request

reqimage -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonP (talk • contribs)

• Request removed by —Preceding unsigned comment added by Who (talk • contribs)

Recent big edit

I have two concerns over the last edit. 1) Wikipedia is NOT a primary source, and we have now quoted text that exceeds the amount of original prose. I believe there is no need for such a big block quote, and we could easily summarize the points and cite the source. 2) Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and this article should not primarily be arguments against he papacy, but instead encyclopedic information relevant to this individual. I believe some of the new content isn't very neutral in that regard, and may be given undue weight to matters not entirely relevant here. -Andrew c 14:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, In trying to remove this article from Stub-Class I heartily agree Wiki is neither an original source nor a soapbox for any particular view. Nevertheless inexact presuppositions create myths which don't belong to the historically based Judeo-Christian religion. The "big block quote" is but a drop in the bucket of the "Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers," and I don't think it's excessive. That said, I do agree that it is a large quote. However, to do history real justice, I should have quoted both paragraphs of Chapter XXV which is very short, and completes about all the ancients knew of Victor. To wit:

Chapter XXV. How All Came to an Agreement Respecting the Passover.

1 Those in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and with them Cassius, bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them, having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the apostles, at the close of their writing add these words:

2 “Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day.”377 Schaff, Philip: The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I. Oak Harbor : Logos Research Systems, 1997, S. 244

The footnotes in the above blocked quote are of little value to the article as I felt were necessary for the part we're discussing.

From the facts it's clear that Victor's real place in history is far more reaching than the information we know about him or the prose that attended his entry. He not only deserves his place in that history, but without knowing what his contributions were, real history kneels to supposition. As you noted, part of that supposition concerns the papacy. Thus the question is of major historical import and should provide no soap boxes even for miscalculated or inaccurate pages of historical pretense. Whether or not the original prose or lack of historical mischief was intentional or unintentional is not important here, but of eternal consequences is dismissal of truth once it's shown. Let's at least live by truth.

That said, I would ask your help in removing this entry from its Stub-Class status, and this should get us pretty close because not much more than this is known about Victor. And I think what's written could be cleaned up a bit. I'd be happy to consider any deletions, additions or amendments you might like to make if you would include them in the discussion pages here. Thanks for your interest. Sky 13:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Sky

I just noticed that no reference is made to the papal controversy, as it should somewhere. Where would you suggest? Sky

I had not noticed the big reversion and I have not only restored it, but enhanced it. There is a lot more information that can be written if it becomes necessary to allow history to have her perfect role. Sky 15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

I removed part of your addition. It clearly was not encyclopedic in tone or content. I mean come on history kneels to supposition? And From the facts it's clear that Victor's real place in history is far more reaching than that usually attended to him. Wikipedia is not the place to correct history's wrongs. We simply report on our sources, and if the majority of sources don't give him much credit, we have to say as much, per WP:NPOV and WP:V.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel I was trying to correct any of history's wrongs. That was certainly not my intent nor would I be very successful at it. :-) Nevertheless, all I have done was to move two paragraphs above the large block quote. I thought they made better sense there. I changed nothing else. Best! Sky 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

First reference

Suggest removal of the massive block of arguement in the reference list156.22.9.252 (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There is some useful information there, so it shouldn't be deleted but the information moved to the main text. On the other hand, there are some clues this might be a copyright violation: at one point some text is missing, which could happen if source text is copied from an original text in two copy-&-paste actions; the other is the use of the first person at one point. Anyway, that text is gone except for some unavoidable phrases. -- llywrch (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we please try to find some sources on ethnicity and what ethnic group he is?

I understand he likely wasn’t sub-Saharan African equally so, he likely wasn’t white European.

He was North Africa and likely had a darker complexion (similar to the coptics I would say)

It does play an important role actually.

Victor was the first pope to speak Latin because Christians in Rome were still using Greek in the liturgy. As one historian has written, it was “remarkable ... that Latin should have won recognition as the language of African Christianity from the outset, while the Roman church was still using Greek.”

Some more information -https://www.stbensparishmilwaukee.org/about-us/history/black-history-profiles/african-popes Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)