Actually, I was more concerned about whether Constantine the Great held the title of PM. Some Freepers were calling Uriel's Post #79, which referred to Constantine as the "Roman Pontiff," as dishonest. My original post is a response to that. After reading some of Uriel's other posts, I see now that he wasn't exactly striving for clarity when he wrote that!
After going to the Vatican website, I've noted that "summus pontifex" (supreme pontiff) appears to be more commonly used in documents than "pontifex maximus." Interesting.
Not quite sure how distinguishing between PM as an official title and PM as a traditional title makes much of a difference, especially in regards to the Church of Rome, which takes Tradition very seriously. Got a source citation?
2. The usage of the term Pontifex Maximus may have it's origins as greatest bridge (possibly signifying a person in charge of bridges over the sacred Tiber river in pre-Christian Rome), but it's meaning evolved over the centuries so that Pontifex means priest and Max is well, as it always was, "greatest", so signifying Head Priest. The meaning of the term now is Head Priest in Latin.
Gotcha.
3. Uriel's assertion that this was somehow inherited from the Babylonians is nonsensical. If the term originated with the Babylonians, it would, logically, have died out when the Babylonians were conquered by the Persians (Persians believed in the teaching of Zoroaster and the Shahenshah (Emperor) of Persia was not Head Priest, and there was no Head Priest among the Magi (Zoroastrian priests). If the term survived, it would have logically gone to a king/priest in Iraq or Syria or Iran, not to far-away Rome.
I'd say that Uriel's assertion is fanciful and unsupported (and doubtless unsupportable) by historical evidence. Historically nonsensical. Diffusionism has claimed many victims over the years.