This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Papal selection before 1059 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 June 2009 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/June. |
The use of "pornocracy" is misleading to modern people, who associate it with pornography, not prostitutes. It was a silly, derogatory term since it is acknowledged that the women concerned were not prostitutes. One suspects it was chosen by celibate men who had taken a particular view of all females.
In any case, the term adds little value to the section. Saeculum obscurum is a better term, and of more historical relevance, but to avoid dispute I have included both. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Do any of the editors of this article know any history? Or am I wrong in assuming that the purpose of this article is to instruct its readers in history? Just asking. Rwflammang ( talk) 02:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The footnotes are all to Baumgartner, wtf? Can anyone provide some other sources? This seems a one-sided view. 81.68.255.36 ( talk) 22:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The Eastern emperors appointed their bishops. What happened when the bishop of Rome turned to the west in 752 and 800? I know that the Holy Roman Emperor appointed the bishops, leading to the Investiture Controversy. This practice must have come from the fact that the Eastern emperors could appoint their bishops. When Charlemagne was crowned emperor, did he also inherit the ability to appoint bishops? If so, why would he worry about the fact that the pope crowned him (carefully designating himself as being "crowned by God" instead of "crowned by the pope")? I mean, the conclave wasn't the practice until somewhere in the eleventh century? Does anyone know what I'm saying? I don't think the article is very clarifying. Also, my earlier comment about the use of only one source is weird. 81.68.255.36 ( talk) 22:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
See papal appointment for further information. Savidan 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
This section is incoherent where not positively self-contradictory. On the face of it, "Byzantine appointment (537-752)" ought to mean that all or most of the popes during this period were appointed to office by the emperor – just as the patriarchs of Constantinople were. The first pope of this series is Vigilius (537-555); the seond is Pelagius I (556-561); and the third is John III (561-574). The article goes so far as to assert that (1) Vigilius was "installed" by Justinian, (2) there was a "sham election" for Pelagius, and (3) Justinian was content merely to "approve" John's election. It is then said that Justinian's successors "continue[d] this practice for over a century". This "practice", of course, being the requirement that popes-elect should receive imperial approbation (iussio) before they were consecrated bishop. Initially this iussio was sought from the emperor in Constantinople himself, but as a result of delays caused by successive crises on the eastern borders of the empire, the grant of iussio was delegated to the exarch at Ravenna as from the election of Honorius I (625-638): see Ekonomou, p.43
The article, however, persists in speaking of "appointment" during this period when it is clear there was no such practice at all and that even iussio was abandoned as early as 684 (see below). The most that can be said is that the elections of Viigilius and Pelagius I were engineered by imperial intrigue. As to the former, the article Pope Vigilius - which condescends to give no reference although the source is The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) - describes various intrigues surrounding his election before judiciously commenting "Much in these accusations against Vigilius appears to be exaggerated, but the manner of his elevation to the See of Rome was not regular."
There is no evidence even within the section itself for the statement in the lede that any pope (let alone most or all) was "appointed" by the emperor. The reference to the "legend" of Gregory's appeal to Constantinople proves the exact opposite of what is claimed for it: what it "proves" is not that popes were appointed by the emperor, but that they were elected in Rome, subject to formal approval (the iussio). It would appear that emperors abandoned their claimed prerogative of approbation of popes-elect, as from the election of Benedict II (684-685): see Ekonomou, p.215 ("Constantine IV removed the requirement of imperial approval as a precondition to the consecration of a pope"). During the period 537-752, moreover, at least two popes did not wait for the iussio: Pelagius II (579-590) and Martin I (649-655). The arrest of the latter was not a response to his flouting the need for iussio, but to his summoning of the Lateran Council in 649 and his refusal to accept the monothelite doctrine promoted in Constantinople: see Duffy, p.76. By 711, the emperors ceased to exercise any effective power in Italy and by 729 the Lombards were besieging Rome, with the exarch powerless to assist.
This rather elementary confusion is perpetuated in various other places in wikipedia – most notably in the use of the misleading and tendentious term "Byzantine Papacy" which, I venture to say, is absent from the literature and, so far as it pretends to include the reign of Gregory the Great, is grossly inapposite. It is permissible to speak of "Byzantine Rome" during the comparatively precarious and discontinuous periods when the emperor exercised military and administrative control over it, and it is even permissible to speak - as Duffy does at pp.72-86 in a passage with this very title - of a kind of "Byzantine Captivity" of the papacy (analogous to the Babylonian captivity of the Jews) during the first half of the 7th c. when the requirement for the iussio was generally observed, but "Byzantine Papacy" smacks of WP:OR. The manifest fact of a tight succession of Greek-speaking popes, as well in the twilight years of Byzantine power in Italy as after its extinction (687-752), is a natural development - perceptible from as early as Theodore I (642-649) - arising from a change in the ethnic composition of the Roman clergy and not at all the consequence of supposititious "appointments" by the emperor. Clearly, a lot of work needs to be done to correct this error. Ridiculus mus ( talk) 13:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no purpose in discussing this further here. If you object to the term "Byzantine Papacy" then go to that article and use WP:RM. Savidan 23:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The article currently reads:-
The next seven popes were more agreeable to Constantinople, and approved without delay, but Pope Benedict II was impelled to wait a year in 684, whereafter the emperor consented to delegate the approval to the exarch of Ravenna, the ruler of the Byzantine district including the Duchy of Rome.[9] During the pontificate of Pope Benedict II (684-685), Constantine IV waived the requirement of imperial approval for consecration as pope, recognizing the sea change in the demographics of the city and its clergy.[10]
"impelled"?, "whereafter"?, "Byzantine district"? The iussio was delegated to the exarch in 684, the same year that the emperor abandoned its exercise altogether? This is another glimpse of the manifest incongruities and self-contradictions in an ineptly written article, the correction of the multitudinous defects in which progresses with the ease of drawing teeth without anaesthetic. A reasonable objection to the word "appointment" for describing the supervisory role of the emperor produced only a squabble and the unconvincing claim that the two terms are equivalent. Tell any student of the US Constitution that the Senate appoints Justices to the Supreme Court and note the reaction. So in Talk it appears there is a stalemate on this issue, but quietly the word "appointment" is deleted by the very person who thinks "appointment" and "confirmation" are equivalent - but in only one place in the section, however, thus compounding the confusion. I am experiencing a total lack of cooperation and even of minimal courtesy when discussing corrections in here. My comments are misread and misrepresented, and the generally bullying tone adopted by the counter-party leaves me disgusted since it is evident there will be more stone-walling, obfuscation and obstruction. Anyone who makes the journey from the article to the discussion page will at least know that more than one editor can see the article suffers from serious problems. If Savidan had not published his disinclination to read comments on his talk page I would have taken my criticisms there, so I do not want to hear from him that remarks relating to his editing skills, his low threshold for accepting criticism, and his unsocial behaviour have no place on this page. Ridiculus mus ( talk) 11:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
In the section "Frankish influence" the article erroneously states that Toto of Nepi had his eyes gouged out and was imprisoned, and that Pope Stephen III subsequently made an edict restricting the eligibility for Papal selections. Furthermore, the text can easily be misconstrued to believe that Toto had himself declared Pope. I corrected these errors, replacing them with the facts: 1. Toto had his brother Constantine, not himself, declared Pope. 2. Constantine, not Toto, was the one who had his eyes gouged out and was imprisoned. 3. The restrictions for eligibility were provided by the Lateran Council of 769, not by a decree from Stephen III. My edit contained hyperlinks to sourced articles stating the facts, and if that were insufficient, I should gladly source the content directly in this article. I expressed no POV; my edit was perfectly neutral. So I am at a loss as to why @ Veverve reverted it. Nikolaj1905 ( talk) 08:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Since you have failed to specify in what way I violated that policy: I did, re-read my message.
I wonder, by the way, if it was my insistance on the role of that council that caused @Veverve to question my neutrality?: yes, it is.
The story of Toto losing his eyes has remained disputed by historians etc.: do we have a reliable source which states this? Veverve ( talk) 15:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Papal selection before 1059 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 June 2009 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/June. |
The use of "pornocracy" is misleading to modern people, who associate it with pornography, not prostitutes. It was a silly, derogatory term since it is acknowledged that the women concerned were not prostitutes. One suspects it was chosen by celibate men who had taken a particular view of all females.
In any case, the term adds little value to the section. Saeculum obscurum is a better term, and of more historical relevance, but to avoid dispute I have included both. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Do any of the editors of this article know any history? Or am I wrong in assuming that the purpose of this article is to instruct its readers in history? Just asking. Rwflammang ( talk) 02:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The footnotes are all to Baumgartner, wtf? Can anyone provide some other sources? This seems a one-sided view. 81.68.255.36 ( talk) 22:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The Eastern emperors appointed their bishops. What happened when the bishop of Rome turned to the west in 752 and 800? I know that the Holy Roman Emperor appointed the bishops, leading to the Investiture Controversy. This practice must have come from the fact that the Eastern emperors could appoint their bishops. When Charlemagne was crowned emperor, did he also inherit the ability to appoint bishops? If so, why would he worry about the fact that the pope crowned him (carefully designating himself as being "crowned by God" instead of "crowned by the pope")? I mean, the conclave wasn't the practice until somewhere in the eleventh century? Does anyone know what I'm saying? I don't think the article is very clarifying. Also, my earlier comment about the use of only one source is weird. 81.68.255.36 ( talk) 22:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
See papal appointment for further information. Savidan 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
This section is incoherent where not positively self-contradictory. On the face of it, "Byzantine appointment (537-752)" ought to mean that all or most of the popes during this period were appointed to office by the emperor – just as the patriarchs of Constantinople were. The first pope of this series is Vigilius (537-555); the seond is Pelagius I (556-561); and the third is John III (561-574). The article goes so far as to assert that (1) Vigilius was "installed" by Justinian, (2) there was a "sham election" for Pelagius, and (3) Justinian was content merely to "approve" John's election. It is then said that Justinian's successors "continue[d] this practice for over a century". This "practice", of course, being the requirement that popes-elect should receive imperial approbation (iussio) before they were consecrated bishop. Initially this iussio was sought from the emperor in Constantinople himself, but as a result of delays caused by successive crises on the eastern borders of the empire, the grant of iussio was delegated to the exarch at Ravenna as from the election of Honorius I (625-638): see Ekonomou, p.43
The article, however, persists in speaking of "appointment" during this period when it is clear there was no such practice at all and that even iussio was abandoned as early as 684 (see below). The most that can be said is that the elections of Viigilius and Pelagius I were engineered by imperial intrigue. As to the former, the article Pope Vigilius - which condescends to give no reference although the source is The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) - describes various intrigues surrounding his election before judiciously commenting "Much in these accusations against Vigilius appears to be exaggerated, but the manner of his elevation to the See of Rome was not regular."
There is no evidence even within the section itself for the statement in the lede that any pope (let alone most or all) was "appointed" by the emperor. The reference to the "legend" of Gregory's appeal to Constantinople proves the exact opposite of what is claimed for it: what it "proves" is not that popes were appointed by the emperor, but that they were elected in Rome, subject to formal approval (the iussio). It would appear that emperors abandoned their claimed prerogative of approbation of popes-elect, as from the election of Benedict II (684-685): see Ekonomou, p.215 ("Constantine IV removed the requirement of imperial approval as a precondition to the consecration of a pope"). During the period 537-752, moreover, at least two popes did not wait for the iussio: Pelagius II (579-590) and Martin I (649-655). The arrest of the latter was not a response to his flouting the need for iussio, but to his summoning of the Lateran Council in 649 and his refusal to accept the monothelite doctrine promoted in Constantinople: see Duffy, p.76. By 711, the emperors ceased to exercise any effective power in Italy and by 729 the Lombards were besieging Rome, with the exarch powerless to assist.
This rather elementary confusion is perpetuated in various other places in wikipedia – most notably in the use of the misleading and tendentious term "Byzantine Papacy" which, I venture to say, is absent from the literature and, so far as it pretends to include the reign of Gregory the Great, is grossly inapposite. It is permissible to speak of "Byzantine Rome" during the comparatively precarious and discontinuous periods when the emperor exercised military and administrative control over it, and it is even permissible to speak - as Duffy does at pp.72-86 in a passage with this very title - of a kind of "Byzantine Captivity" of the papacy (analogous to the Babylonian captivity of the Jews) during the first half of the 7th c. when the requirement for the iussio was generally observed, but "Byzantine Papacy" smacks of WP:OR. The manifest fact of a tight succession of Greek-speaking popes, as well in the twilight years of Byzantine power in Italy as after its extinction (687-752), is a natural development - perceptible from as early as Theodore I (642-649) - arising from a change in the ethnic composition of the Roman clergy and not at all the consequence of supposititious "appointments" by the emperor. Clearly, a lot of work needs to be done to correct this error. Ridiculus mus ( talk) 13:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no purpose in discussing this further here. If you object to the term "Byzantine Papacy" then go to that article and use WP:RM. Savidan 23:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The article currently reads:-
The next seven popes were more agreeable to Constantinople, and approved without delay, but Pope Benedict II was impelled to wait a year in 684, whereafter the emperor consented to delegate the approval to the exarch of Ravenna, the ruler of the Byzantine district including the Duchy of Rome.[9] During the pontificate of Pope Benedict II (684-685), Constantine IV waived the requirement of imperial approval for consecration as pope, recognizing the sea change in the demographics of the city and its clergy.[10]
"impelled"?, "whereafter"?, "Byzantine district"? The iussio was delegated to the exarch in 684, the same year that the emperor abandoned its exercise altogether? This is another glimpse of the manifest incongruities and self-contradictions in an ineptly written article, the correction of the multitudinous defects in which progresses with the ease of drawing teeth without anaesthetic. A reasonable objection to the word "appointment" for describing the supervisory role of the emperor produced only a squabble and the unconvincing claim that the two terms are equivalent. Tell any student of the US Constitution that the Senate appoints Justices to the Supreme Court and note the reaction. So in Talk it appears there is a stalemate on this issue, but quietly the word "appointment" is deleted by the very person who thinks "appointment" and "confirmation" are equivalent - but in only one place in the section, however, thus compounding the confusion. I am experiencing a total lack of cooperation and even of minimal courtesy when discussing corrections in here. My comments are misread and misrepresented, and the generally bullying tone adopted by the counter-party leaves me disgusted since it is evident there will be more stone-walling, obfuscation and obstruction. Anyone who makes the journey from the article to the discussion page will at least know that more than one editor can see the article suffers from serious problems. If Savidan had not published his disinclination to read comments on his talk page I would have taken my criticisms there, so I do not want to hear from him that remarks relating to his editing skills, his low threshold for accepting criticism, and his unsocial behaviour have no place on this page. Ridiculus mus ( talk) 11:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
In the section "Frankish influence" the article erroneously states that Toto of Nepi had his eyes gouged out and was imprisoned, and that Pope Stephen III subsequently made an edict restricting the eligibility for Papal selections. Furthermore, the text can easily be misconstrued to believe that Toto had himself declared Pope. I corrected these errors, replacing them with the facts: 1. Toto had his brother Constantine, not himself, declared Pope. 2. Constantine, not Toto, was the one who had his eyes gouged out and was imprisoned. 3. The restrictions for eligibility were provided by the Lateran Council of 769, not by a decree from Stephen III. My edit contained hyperlinks to sourced articles stating the facts, and if that were insufficient, I should gladly source the content directly in this article. I expressed no POV; my edit was perfectly neutral. So I am at a loss as to why @ Veverve reverted it. Nikolaj1905 ( talk) 08:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Since you have failed to specify in what way I violated that policy: I did, re-read my message.
I wonder, by the way, if it was my insistance on the role of that council that caused @Veverve to question my neutrality?: yes, it is.
The story of Toto losing his eyes has remained disputed by historians etc.: do we have a reliable source which states this? Veverve ( talk) 15:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)