Talk:Papal conclave

Ambiguity?

Is the following in the article ambiguous in meaning as to which is the most recent?

> As of 2017, the three most recent conclaves have elected a Pole, a German, and an Argentinian.

Would it be better if the nationalities each had a date after them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.208.162 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sure. Done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.208.162 (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

cum clave

"the cardinal electors should be locked in seclusion cum clave (Latin for "with a key")"

If this is intended to explain the etymology of the word, then:

1) I do not know if anyone notices, but the word is "CONclave" and not "CUMclave". So what the latter has to do with the former, please?

2) "cum"+"clave" does indeed literally mean "with"+"a key"; the problem is that Latin is an inflected language, so its instrumentals do not require to be marked with a preposition. And so "(to lock) with a key" is "(claudere) clave", without one. Exactly as in "qui gladio ferit, gladio perit" (who lives by the sword, dies by the sword), and not "qui cum gladio ferit" etc.

3) On the contrary "to lock someone cum clave" (claudere aliquem cum clave) does not really mean "to lock someone with a key", but "to lock someone together with a key", which is absurd.

4) The reality is that "conclave" is a common Latin noun which means "a (locked) room" (viz. where the cardinals are sitting in the process of the creation of a new pope). To be checked in ANY relevant dictionary, not necessary an ecclesiastic one.

@4: Or in Wiktionary (I don't undertake to decide if it's a relevant dictionary or not). @2/3: There is some chance that the usage was looser (i.e. more influenced by Romance vernaculars) before the Renaissance. 89.64.69.36 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• • "cum clave" is a folk etymology. -178.73.63.242 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Ronald Edward

When am I clear to go paint 47.42.29.229 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Oath speeding up the election?

This bit had me scratching my head:

"Gregory XV added the additional oath, taken when each cardinal casts his ballot, to prevent cardinals wasting time in casting "courtesy votes" and instead narrowing the number of realistic candidates for the papal throne to perhaps only two or three. Speed in electing a pope was important, and that meant using an oath so as to get the cardinals down to the serious business of electing a new pope and narrowing the number of potentially electable candidates."

How, exactly, does the additional oath do these things? How does it speed things up and narrow down the number of candidates? Snowgrouse (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Papal conclave

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Significant violations of criterion 2b and minor violations of criterion 3b. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Many unreferenced paragraphs and also many half-referenced paragraphs, especially in the second half of the article. There is also one citation needed tags. Those are violations of criterion 2b.

A few paragraphs are very long and should be split in two. Some of the descriptions of the voting process go very much into detail about the possible and hypothetical steps that can or should be taken in different scenarios. This could be a violation of criterion 3b.

The article received a GAR 14 years ago. It also received a peer review 6 years ago where concerns about the sourcing were discussed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who presides?

See https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html paragraph 9 - "If one or both of [the Dean of the College and the Subdean], in accordance with No. 33 of this Constitution, no longer enjoy the right of electing the Pope [i.e. they are aged over 80] the assembly of the Cardinal electors will be presided over by the senior Cardinal elector, according to the customary order of precedence." So: -

1. 2013 papal conclave - Dean Angelo Sodano and Sub-dean Roger Etchegaray were aged over 80 and so, as stated in the article, "Giovanni Battista Re from Italy, the most senior Cardinal-Bishop participating, presided over the conclave." I.e. Camerlengo and outgoing Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone did not.

2. 2005 papal conclave - Dean Joseph Ratzinger presided - over his own election, as it turned out. I.e. Camerlengo Eduardo Martínez Somalo did not. Neither did Angelo Sodano - as stated in his article, his "position as Secretary of State expired upon the death of John Paul II."

3. & 4. October 1978 papal conclave and August 1978 papal conclave- Dean Carlo Confalonieri and Sub-dean Paolo Marella were aged over 80 and so, as stated in his article, Jean-Marie Villot "presided at [both the August and October conclaves of 1978] because he was the senior cardinal bishop in attendance". He happened to be Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church and outgoing Secretary of State.

5. 1963 papal conclave and all previous conclaves - the age limit did not apply.

For completeness, as of now, Dean Giovanni Battista Re and Leonardo Sandri are aged over 80 and Pietro Parolin is the senior Cardinal elector and would preside over a conclave if one were to take place now. He happens to be Secretary of State. Camerlengo Kevin Farrell would not preside.

Would it be worth adding a line in the infobox for each of the last 4 conclaves, stating who presided? Alekksandr (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)