Jump to content

Talk:Pope Celestine V

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoodDay (talk | contribs) at 04:10, 14 February 2013 (→Requested move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

What is the basis for this comment: "Despite his brief and disastrous papacy..."? Nothing in the following text suggests there was anything especially disastrous about this papacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm talk (talk • contribs) 19:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While substantive, the formatting is very poor. It is not grouped into topics or sections, and is more like an essay than a biographical entry. I am not saying I can do better, but with poor formatting and no citations, it is not Wikipedia quality. - Tolstoy143 Quos vult perdere dementat 06:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that Bingham is a reference to a papal historian; if you look at most of the other entries for the earlier popes they are taken from late 19th-century encyclopedias, which cite these historians. User:FeanorStar7

'Poor but honest'? 'untimely death'? That entry reads more like Danielle Steel than an encyclopedia. It makes the entire article very dubious.

And yet it is essentially accurate and consistent with what I know of his life story. A Google search of his Dad's name without the qualifier "but honest" yields virtually nothing. A better description may be possible, but I wouldn't be certain of that considering the limitations of Medieval biography. Still I'll check my, secular, encyclopedia--T. Anthony 23:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's very little on his family. It looks like the "poor but honest, untimely death" stuff has to say unless we just not mention his family at all. Although I put the modifier "described as."--T. Anthony 23:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
His body rests in my town (L'Aquila) and we have lots of sources on him, here. Most sources point to his family name as Angelerio. BTW, most modern commentators of Dante say that Celestine V is not the person mentioned by Dante.
--Lou Crazy 19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I found the following potentially useful source:

--Filll 15:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birth Year

There seems to be some disagreement as to Celestine's birth year. Some have it as 1215, others as 1221, and the Catholic Church has it at 1209. I'm going with 1209 for now, but I would like to see some documentation of that from non-church sources if possible.--Kurtkoeh (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Dante and Celestine V

“Many early commentators thought that [Dante] stigmatized Celestine V. Most later commentators, however, refute such an identification.” An overstatement. Many commentators, early and late, have thought it likely. Some are uncertain, others reject it. But it does have a long tradition behind it and finds a lot of support in the present (e.g. Hollander, Barbara Reynolds, Simonelli, Padoan and many others). In 1986 Pompeo Giannantonio wrote: “All'identificazione con Celestino V ha aderito la maggioranza degli studiosi." Wikipedia ought to say this Ettormo (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchs category

Is there a RS calling him (or popes in general) monarchs? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source material

A great deal of this entry comes directly from Encyclopedia Britannica. A quick Google search turns up a result at

http://books.google.com/books?id=HKgMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA291&lpg=PA291&dq=celestine+v+infected+air&source=bl&ots=pdwm1WRgHB&sig=uucTxm5tQ7cH0qaFo0HUcwf7ELM&hl=en&ei=DeaPTpm6CMjv0gGxnfAY&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=celestine%20v%20infected%20air&f=false

That edition of EB is probably out of copyright, but it needs to be cited nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maskaggs (talk • contribs) 06:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

″Abdicated″

Is this appropriate terminology? Over on the papal resignation article, it is specifically stated that it is NEVER referred to as abdication by the church. Similarly, the hotlink should possibly point to the resignation article. Thoughts? Infojunkie23 (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Pope Celestine V → Celestine V – Celestine V, acting with papal supremacy, renounced his position as Pope. If the man with absolute authority over the workings of the Church says he is no longer a Pope, it is so. Wikipedia uses current info, and, most recently, this man was not a Pope. Dead Popes remain Popes, because even death does not have the authority to remove this title. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, of course. That is absurd. I do not wish to offend anyone, but popes are just humans. Popes who died 700 years ago, on the other hand, are just minerals. If a man titled "pope" had any authority over death, I very much doubt he would ever submit to it by dying. That said, Pope Celestine V's decision is completely irrelevant when it comes to naming an article about him. He is known to history as Pope Celestine V, not as a hermit and prisoner. Surtsicna (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean a Pope can choose not to die. I mean death cannot formally strip the papacy from a Pope, but that Pope can renounce it himself. And I am not suggesting we title the article Hermit Celestine V. The content of the article would remain as is, with weight on his papacy. Remember, "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the move request is that there is no problem with the present title. He was a pope. He then ceased to be a pope. Since there was no pope anymore, a new one was elected. The former pope eventually died. He is dead now and has been so for the past seven centuries. Pope John Paul II was a pope. He then died and thus ceased to be a pope. Since there was no pope anymore, a new one was elected. Both Celestine V and John Paul II used to be popes but both ceased to hold the office and neither of them is pope anymore. Henry VIII is certainly no longer king of England, not only because there is no such kingdom anymore, but also because he ceased to be its king when he died. John F. Kennedy, who died as president of the United States, is no more a president than Richard Nixon, who resigned and eventually died. Kennedy is also no more a president than George W. Bush, whose term expired and who is still alive.
Moving the article would create an ugly inconsistency with articles in Category:Popes and what for? Surtsicna (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To acknowledge his official declaration that he wasn't a Pope, and to address the "Precision" part of the article naming criteria. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As noted and explained above in great detail, there is nothing imprecise about the present title. Surtsicna (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I'm curious: do you know of any sources showing that he declared that he had never been the Pope rather than that he was merely resigning or abdicating? —Neil 19:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just worded that poorly. He declared he was no longer a Pope. And he still isn't. He certainly was, for a few months. But for the past 718 years, he hasn't been. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting question, but even if he did deny ever being pope, I doubt that would change anything. Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were specifically stripped of their queenly title and, as far as law is concerned, they were never queens. Nevertheless, Wiki articles appropriately describe them as 16th cnetury queens. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but they were stripped by outside forces who held different opinions to their own. A renunciation is different, I think. More absolute to give something away than to have it taken unwillingly. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of them opposed the decision to strip them of their titles. Besides, this is all irrelevant. To claim that a 1294 renunciation has any effect on how we should refer to someone in 2013 is absurd. Celestin V, Edward VIII and William I, are examples of princes who are known to history by the title they renounced. Surtsicna (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but his WP:COMMONNAME would still be Celestine V. I see no reason why he'd have to give up his papal name, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Celestine_V&oldid=538162370"