Does anyone know what happens if the Senior Cardinal Deacon is elected Pope? Does he announce his own election? Does the new Senior Cardinal Deacon announce it (ruining the surprise by simply appearing, as this makes it obvious the previous Senior Cardinal Deacon was elected)? Has this happened before? OCNative 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Good thinking...will check this out ASAP.-- Tdxi a ng 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk) ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It hapened several times in the past. Following Popes were protodeacons when elected to the papacy:
The election of Leo X (Giovanni Medici) was announced by Cardinal Alessandro Farnese (later Pope Paul III), cardinal-deacon next to Medici in the order of seniority. [7] CarlosPn ( talk) January 13, 2008, 19:13 CET
What if a non-Cardinal is elected? Albeit highly unlikely, the formula "Sanctae Romanae Ecclasiae Cardinalem..." would change 68.175.27.35 18:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
One does have to be a Cardinal, nor raised to become Pope, one simply has to be a Bishop to become Bishop of Rome(Pope). Paul VI got a few votes at the conclave that elected John XXIII.
If the Proto-Deacon is elected, he does not announce himself. Instead, the next senior deacon announces the choice. This happend once, but I'm not for sure when.
Give announce of election Pius XII. Announce election cardinal Dominioni. Please search in webs and give it on page
Are we sure that the Habemus Papam was always anounced by the protodeacon? We can search far in the past to find who was the protodeacon when this or that pope was elected, but the procedure of the anouncement may have changed. For example, in Philippe Levillain (editor), The Papacy: An Encyclopedia, Routledge, 2002, 1780 p. ISBN 0-415-93752-3 we can read that the announcement phrase changed and was simplified since Pius XI was elected. Can someone find informations on the subject? Švitrigaila 10:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all these informations. I think they could be added to the article itself. Švitrigaila ( talk) 08:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If an Eastern Rite Catholic were elected to the papacy would the part of the Habemus Papam referring the Romanae Ecclasiae be ammended accordingly? If so could this be put in the article?-- Captdoc ( talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe that someone delete it the recordings of the Habemus Papam, that's terrible!!!! Lefairh ( talk) 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I see that the recordings (which I remember from some years ago, and wanted to look up again today, only to find them gone) haven't even been preserved in the Commons section. I recall at least four or five sound clips, which have been entirely taken out of the system, even in the other-language versions of the article. What happened? Does someone still have the audiofiles? It seems crucial to restore them in some form, to my mind. Suggestions please! 212.123.140.1 ( talk) 11:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Common noun should be small 'p' in English and Latin shouldn't it? ( talk) 04:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The French and Italian Wikipedias note that the accusative is the actual preferred grammatical form for the papal name although in four cases (John XXIII, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI), the genitive case was used. Both the French and Italian Wikipedias of these article include the information and why from a grammatical standpoint the accusative is the preferred form (the Italian article notes some Latin grammars). I'm including it at this time pending verification and confirmation. -- Harvzsf ( talk) 23:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
In the "Announcement" section, I think the comments on regnal name numbering do not seem to recognize the functional difference between Pope John Paul I and Pope Francis' papal names.
When a regnal name is compound, there are multiple ways to choose the ordinal number. Some assign the number to the first name and treat the second name as a kind of surname (e.g. King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden). He is the sixteenth of traditionally recognized Swedish kings named Carl (or Charles). He is also the second to have the combined name Carl (or Charles) Gustaf. Though this would have been unusual in Sweden, he could have been Carl Gustaf II (basing the number on the combination) or Carl XVI Gustaf (basing the number on his first name only). He chose the latter, which, admittedly, is more typical for Swedish kings' regnal names.
There was no tradition of dual names for popes before Pope John Paul I. But I believe Cardinal Luciani had the same option available to him when he chose his compound name. He could have chosen to be known as Pope John XXIV Paul (basing the ordinal number on the first name and treating the second as a surname). In order to make clear that he was basing the number on the combination "John Paul," it was necessary to specify in his announcement that he was John Paul I (not John XXIV Paul). The first compound name in papal history would have created huge confusion as to its proper number if that number had not been specified at the Habemus Papam announcement.
There was no such necessity at the announcement of Pope Francis' election. He was the first to choose this regnal name and there was no chance of confusion on what his number should be. That, I believe, is why no number was given at his Habemus Papam announcement.
I don't know a short, simple way to explain that in this article, and it's probably not necessary. But this section, as written, seems to imply that it is basically arbitrary whether a first-time regnal name includes "the First" as part of its announcement. I think there is actually a clear reason John Paul wanted himself specified as "the First" and Francis did not have the same need, and this section could be reworded to reflect that.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone know what happens if the Senior Cardinal Deacon is elected Pope? Does he announce his own election? Does the new Senior Cardinal Deacon announce it (ruining the surprise by simply appearing, as this makes it obvious the previous Senior Cardinal Deacon was elected)? Has this happened before? OCNative 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Good thinking...will check this out ASAP.-- Tdxi a ng 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk) ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It hapened several times in the past. Following Popes were protodeacons when elected to the papacy:
The election of Leo X (Giovanni Medici) was announced by Cardinal Alessandro Farnese (later Pope Paul III), cardinal-deacon next to Medici in the order of seniority. [7] CarlosPn ( talk) January 13, 2008, 19:13 CET
What if a non-Cardinal is elected? Albeit highly unlikely, the formula "Sanctae Romanae Ecclasiae Cardinalem..." would change 68.175.27.35 18:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
One does have to be a Cardinal, nor raised to become Pope, one simply has to be a Bishop to become Bishop of Rome(Pope). Paul VI got a few votes at the conclave that elected John XXIII.
If the Proto-Deacon is elected, he does not announce himself. Instead, the next senior deacon announces the choice. This happend once, but I'm not for sure when.
Give announce of election Pius XII. Announce election cardinal Dominioni. Please search in webs and give it on page
Are we sure that the Habemus Papam was always anounced by the protodeacon? We can search far in the past to find who was the protodeacon when this or that pope was elected, but the procedure of the anouncement may have changed. For example, in Philippe Levillain (editor), The Papacy: An Encyclopedia, Routledge, 2002, 1780 p. ISBN 0-415-93752-3 we can read that the announcement phrase changed and was simplified since Pius XI was elected. Can someone find informations on the subject? Švitrigaila 10:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all these informations. I think they could be added to the article itself. Švitrigaila ( talk) 08:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If an Eastern Rite Catholic were elected to the papacy would the part of the Habemus Papam referring the Romanae Ecclasiae be ammended accordingly? If so could this be put in the article?-- Captdoc ( talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe that someone delete it the recordings of the Habemus Papam, that's terrible!!!! Lefairh ( talk) 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I see that the recordings (which I remember from some years ago, and wanted to look up again today, only to find them gone) haven't even been preserved in the Commons section. I recall at least four or five sound clips, which have been entirely taken out of the system, even in the other-language versions of the article. What happened? Does someone still have the audiofiles? It seems crucial to restore them in some form, to my mind. Suggestions please! 212.123.140.1 ( talk) 11:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Common noun should be small 'p' in English and Latin shouldn't it? ( talk) 04:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The French and Italian Wikipedias note that the accusative is the actual preferred grammatical form for the papal name although in four cases (John XXIII, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI), the genitive case was used. Both the French and Italian Wikipedias of these article include the information and why from a grammatical standpoint the accusative is the preferred form (the Italian article notes some Latin grammars). I'm including it at this time pending verification and confirmation. -- Harvzsf ( talk) 23:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
In the "Announcement" section, I think the comments on regnal name numbering do not seem to recognize the functional difference between Pope John Paul I and Pope Francis' papal names.
When a regnal name is compound, there are multiple ways to choose the ordinal number. Some assign the number to the first name and treat the second name as a kind of surname (e.g. King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden). He is the sixteenth of traditionally recognized Swedish kings named Carl (or Charles). He is also the second to have the combined name Carl (or Charles) Gustaf. Though this would have been unusual in Sweden, he could have been Carl Gustaf II (basing the number on the combination) or Carl XVI Gustaf (basing the number on his first name only). He chose the latter, which, admittedly, is more typical for Swedish kings' regnal names.
There was no tradition of dual names for popes before Pope John Paul I. But I believe Cardinal Luciani had the same option available to him when he chose his compound name. He could have chosen to be known as Pope John XXIV Paul (basing the ordinal number on the first name and treating the second as a surname). In order to make clear that he was basing the number on the combination "John Paul," it was necessary to specify in his announcement that he was John Paul I (not John XXIV Paul). The first compound name in papal history would have created huge confusion as to its proper number if that number had not been specified at the Habemus Papam announcement.
There was no such necessity at the announcement of Pope Francis' election. He was the first to choose this regnal name and there was no chance of confusion on what his number should be. That, I believe, is why no number was given at his Habemus Papam announcement.
I don't know a short, simple way to explain that in this article, and it's probably not necessary. But this section, as written, seems to imply that it is basically arbitrary whether a first-time regnal name includes "the First" as part of its announcement. I think there is actually a clear reason John Paul wanted himself specified as "the First" and Francis did not have the same need, and this section could be reworded to reflect that.