Jump to content

Talk:List of Catholic basilicas

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

(First comments)

[edit]

Just a note: the basilica in Baltimore is called the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, not the Basilica of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as some anonymous user would have it. See the Archdiocese's list of historical sites and the official website (overuses Flash). —No-One Jones 18:48, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Minor Basilicas in England

[edit]

Corpus Christi Basilica in Manchester was designated as such by Pope Saint Pius X in the form of a Motu Proprio, on the 17th of May AD 1904. This was in response to the supplication made by Abbot Martin Francis Guedens O.Praem., Titular Abbot of Barlings. The original document (including the Pontiff's own handwriting and signature) is preserved in the archives of Corpus Christi Canonry in Miles Platting, Manchester. A scanned copy of this Papal Motu Proprio is available on request, more information being added to the Priory's website over time: http://www.praemonstratensis.co.uk/. The Pontiff later bestowed a chalice upon the Basilica at the Eucharistic Congress in 1907, presented by the Papal Representative to the Abbot. A "Pax Brede" from the Lord Bishop of Salford was also gifted to mark the Church's status. The Basilica is also mentioned in the offical histories of the Diocese. The Basilica was erected as a centre of Reparation and Eucharistic devotion, being the headquarters for the Archconfraternity of Reparation for the United Kingdom and Eire.

More information is avaliable. The Basilica may be little known outside the north of England BUT is clearly the oldest in the country AND one of the oldest in the custody of the Canons Regular of Prémontré (it is also a Conventual and Parish Church).

In Jesus, Mary and St Norbert, Br Ninian Doohan O.Praem

If this is the case, I would be interested to know why every list of basilicas I've seen lists St Chad's Birmingham and Downside Abbey as England's only Minor Basilicas. See here for example. I'm not disputing what you say, I'm just interested. -- Necrothesp 22:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--- I hope a more experienced editor can link to the Dutch wiki page for the basiliek in st Odilienberg in The Netherlands: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basiliek_van_de_H.H._Wiro,_Plechelmus_en_Otgerus Chris H

Valle de los Caídos

[edit]

Why is the Valle de los Caídos not listed here? -- NIC1138 13:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's clearly an incomplete list! -- Necrothesp 18:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image Image:StJBasilica.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barquisimeto, Venezuela

[edit]

This recent version of the Barquisimeto article in Wikipedia refers to the church that holds the Divina Pastora as the "Basilica Minor". Spanish-language web sites that I have seen call it La Iglesia de Santa Rosa, located in the small village of Santa Rosa, near (in?) Barquisimeto. Should it be included in our list? Peter Chastain (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

This list has been seriously compromised when compared to the list, of say, August 2009. Many entries have been removed for what appears to be no good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flags33 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Adalbert's in Buffalo, NY

[edit]

I had a conversation with a sister at the Diocese of Buffalo office today that cleared up confusion over on the Basilica Talk. Please see here (keep in mind it's from 1959). It turns out St. Adalbert's is affiliated with a major basilica - St. Peter's - which does not make it a basilica. In particular, "Of course, a church need not be a minor basilica in order to ask and receive affiliation; but in no case does this indulgence — affiliation with a major basilica endow the recipient church — as some have thought — with the title or rank of minor basilica" and "At times the title basilica has been applied to other American churches in addition to the twelve we list. If they merit the title, the papal document conferring the rank has at least never been published in the A.S.S. (1865-1908) or in the A.A.S. (1909- ). More likely the claim has been based on their obtaining indulgence-affiliation with one of the major basilicas. This is the case with St. John the Apostle and Evangelist in St. Louis and Old St. John's in Chicago, both affiliated with St. John Lateran; and St. Adalbert, Buffalo, affiliated with St. Peter's. As we have already pointed out, affiliation does not confer the rank or prerogatives of a minor basilica." So, St. Adalbert's is not a basilica, making St. Mary's in Minneapolis the first in the US. From what I hear, there has been some loss in the distinction between being affiliated with a major basilica and being conferred the title of minor basilica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic star (talk • contribs) 03:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:NIKAIA-SteReparatePano2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:NIKAIA-SteReparatePano2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 28 April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:NIKAIA-SteReparatePano2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Immemorial" basilicas

[edit]

For some reason, a user has taken to claiming that some basilicas are immemorial. Oddly enough, that seems to apply to all basilicas in Spain and Israel, but to almost no basilicas outside Spain and Israel. For the basilicas in Spain, we do know when they were built and for some of them we know when they were consecrated. If there is uncertainty about the exact year, it's still much more encyclopedic to say in which decade or century there were constructed or consecrated than to add some vague and undefined "immemorial". For the basilicas in Israel, and forgive my frankness, the "immemorial" claim is simply nonsense. If a church was built in 1967 and consecrated in 1969, then there is nothing "immemorial" about it. I should add that I am aware of the fact that some personal home pages of Catholics claim that some of these basilicas are "immemorial", but I'd like to remind all editors that such pages are very seldom reliable sources. To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic church does not make that claim. Even if it did, it wouldn't really change anything as Wikipedia is about facts, and if the fact is that a church is built in 1967 and consecrated in 1969, the claims a church might make does not change the facts. There is quite simply not a single basilica in the world whose history is unknown. For almost all basilicas, the exact year is known. For the few exceptions, the decade or century is known. Jeppiz (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the intro for an explanation before you change something that has stood for years. Because a church was built at a certain date does not mean it was recognised as a basilica at that date. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the intro, but I don't find anything in the intro any support for your version, nor do you provide any sources. If you have sources for the "immemorial" claims, I'd be interested in seeing them. The only site I've seen repeating them is gcatholic.com, which is not a reliable source but rather a personal home page. The argument that your version has "stood for years" is irrelevant; a version is only good if it's correct and sourced, not because it's old or new. As the dates for most of these basilicas can be sourced, I remain skeptical to the immemorial claims. If sources for those claims are provided, they should of course be taken into consideration.Jeppiz (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to revert my own edit as a sign of good faith, though someone else did it before me. I'm not reverting for now, nobody wants an edit war. I need to point out that the (unsourced) claim that user made is not encyclopedic. The user claimed that the 1917 Canon Law claims these basilicas to be immemorial. Quite frankly, that doesn't matter. Anyone who has followed the endless discussions on the Muhammad page knows that we don't accept Muslim claims at face value, and the same thing goes for Catholic claims or any other religious claims. If the Catholic church claims that these basilicas are immemorial, then that is a claim I think we need to include in the article. However, it should not supersede facts. A church built in 1967 and consecrated in 1969 should be given with the year of 1967 if we go by construction year, or by 1969 if we go by consecration. There is already a Catholic Encyclopedia (usually very reliable), but this is not it. Verifiable facts take precedence over religious beliefs here.Jeppiz (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I revert your edit because it is the term used by the Catholic church to describe them and this is a list of Catholic churches known as basilica or created minor basilica by the Popes in th last two centuries. Before 1917 the title "basilica" didn't mean anything canonically for the Catholic church (see Canon 1180, here). It was just a custom with no other value that the one one to give to it, a marketing trick to attract people to your church instead of your neighbor's. The title basilica minor was granted for the first time in 18th century. It was an exception that triggered a wave of requests. All the catholic churches wanted to become minor basilica. This lasted until the 1917 Canon law who put order into it by defining some rules and stating that older basilicas could keep using the title because of "immemorial" custom. The Catholic Church doesn't claim anything. It is a mere classification: minor basilicas and basilica that were known as basilicas for an undefined time. It is more a "legal" trick to avoid creating a confusion between minor basilicas and churches aka basilicas. That is the reason why you have hundreds of basilicas in Italy. The Canon law only recognize few different of sacred places (oratory, altars, churches, shrines, cathedral and cementaries) and basilicas is not one of them. It is a mere honorific title like golden roses. The same is true for Papal basilicas (previously known as Patriarchal basilicas) or major basilica. You won't find much in the 1911 Cath Ency nor in the 2003 edition. It is not a point of faith, no belief attached. There is more "belief" attached to the title of bishop or pope than to the one of basilica.
As a matter of fact, it was taken out of the last edition Catholic Canon Law (you won't find it the 1983 edition: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM). Imho, the adjective "immemorial" is a more fancy way of saying "we don't known, we don't care but old enough". Canon chapters are also said to be immemorial when too old. What do you think it is relates to in your opinion? If there is a better way to translate in English "immemorabili" by immemorial, I am more than open for discussion.
Minor basilicas receive from the pope some privileges and a couple of artifacts. Their nomination is published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (here is the archive http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/index_sp.htm). In principle, one should cite the AAS when a church is said to be minor basilica (or cathedral). I have done it for a couple of articles but it is very tedious process. AAS is often written in Latin and you need to translate the name of the place in Latin before you could find the official record. Tedious but necessary.
Generally, the churches are not consecrated basilicas like a Bishop or a Pope are not born Bishop or Pope. Using the construction or consecration date make no sense. Some basilicas were founded as a chapel, torn down a few times, became eventually a cathedral and centuries after minor basilica. Some buildings were called basilicas at a certain point in time and it lasted until today.
However, you got a point with the 20th churches in Jerusalem. I don't know why they are said immemorial. When I have some time, I will glance the AAS from that period to check if they were created minor basilica. As far I am concerned, this should be tagged as needing a citation.
Hope I made my point clearer. Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your good and informative comments, I understand your position much better. The background you describe is very interesting, and perhaps parts of it could even be put into the introduction? As you say that the word "immemorial" has now been taken out by the Catholic Church, I think it would be good to go with trying to be as precise as possible. For the Spanish basilicas, it really appears as if the date is not known, and we should of course not make up dates. As a reader, I would still find it more interesting and informative to know that a Spanish basilica was constructed in the 16th century than to read that it's "immemorial". Especially as "immemorial" has been used even for new churches. For the newly constructed basilicas in Israel, I really believe we should give the year in which they were built or consecrated. Unlike the Spanish basilicas, there is nothing uncertain about their dates and that is why I think we should use these dates. If some of them go back on earlier traditions, I don't mind at all inserting that in a footnote. In so doing, however, we would need to be careful not to claim non-Catholic churches as Catholic, as I assume that might cause offense to Orthodox Christians. Of course that only applies if a contemporary Catholic basilica was founded on the site of an older Orthodox church, perhaps that isn't the case and then it's a moot point.Jeppiz (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

[edit]

This page is 167 Kb long: is it worth considering splitting it? The Italian basilicas are already on a different page; is it worth breaking out the French, Polish and Spanish ones (countries with more than 100 each) to their own pages? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Cathedral, St. Louis, Missouri

[edit]

I did not find the St. Louis Cathedral listed. Maybe I am looking in the wrong section. If it is missing, it should be added to the lists. If it is here, where would I find it? Pete unseth (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's here. Exactly where you'd expect it to be, under North America, United States and then alphabetically by city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement of an image illustration

[edit]

Please take care of this discussion Talk:Basilica_of_St._Castor#Replacement_of_an_image_illustration that is also a matter for this article. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Basilicas

[edit]

There are 28 basilicas in India, of which 23 are of the Latin rite, 4 are of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and 1 is of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. The state of Kerala has 10 basilicas, including all 5 non-Roman Catholic basilicas while Tamil Nadu has 7 basilicas and Karnataka has 4. All the remaining basilicas are the only ones in their respective states or union territories. India is the country with the most basilicas in Asia.

Kindly update the list by referring the link: http://www.gcatholic.org/churches/data/basINX.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:18C:E249:64B1:ECC9:77EF:AA8D (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading title, article should be moved

[edit]

This is a list of Catholic basilicas, it's not a list of all Christian basilicas, so either the page should be moved to List of Roman Catholic Basilicas or all non-Catholic basilicas should be included. Jeppiz (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said correctly that it is about Catholic basilicas, so why didn't you move to List of Catholic Basilicas? Our article is Catholic Church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2015

[edit]

This list has no picture of the Basilica of Our Lady of Lourdes in Edegem, Belgium. Wikimedia Commons has a fine picture of it, [[File:Edegem Basiliek1.JPG]]. Please insert it. Polla ta deina (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, done, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015

[edit]

Please include updates of basilica in Oceania to include Samoa http://www.gcatholic.org/churches/data/basASX.htm

Samoa–Apia Basilica Sancta Ana Locate Leulumoega, Samoa Samoa Minor Basilica 2009.12.08

MMMENZ (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2016

[edit]

This list has no picture of the Basilica of Our Lady of Consolation in Vilvoorde, Belgium. Wikimedia Commons has a good picture of it, [[ File:70536-Karmelietessenklooster Onze-Lieve-Vrouw ten Troost.jpg]]. Please insert it. Polla ta deina (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2016:

[edit]

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

}} Lawrax (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

[edit]
84.206.29.66 (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Author, Please enroll two new Basilica minors from Hungary: -Báta: Shrine of Holy Blood on 23 September 2020. https://pecsiegyhazmegye.hu/hirarchivum/3976-basilica-minor-rangot-kapott-a-batai-szent-ver-kegytemplom-a-vii-egyhazmegyei-batai-zarandoklaton-video-2 -Andocs: Shrine of Basilica of Our Lady of Assumption on 10 October 2021. https://kaposvar.egyhazmegye.hu/index.php/hirek/item/804-tanuljunk-imadkozni-mariatol-basilica-minor-rangra-emeltek-az-andocsi-kegytemplomot

Thank you and kind regards!

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2023

[edit]

Oradea Cathedral page exists and should be displayed accordingly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_Basilica_of_St._Mary,_Oradea. Currently the link is invalid. Please update. Usabin (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. It was already listed, just had to fix the link. – small jars tc 23:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Usabin: You could just have created a redirect from Oradea Cathedral as I have just done! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Year of designation for the Basilica of St. John the Baptist in St. John's, Newfoundland

[edit]

The year of designation listed for the Basilica of St. John the Baptist is 1855, but the article states that it was raised to a Basilica by Pope Pius XII in 1955 during its centenary. While the article has no citation, the website for Heritage Newfoundland verifies the later date. [1]

107.179.132.134 (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rainsage (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Basilica Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (200 Military Road, St. John's)". The Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Website. Retrieved 29 September 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Catholic_basilicas&oldid=1248527477"