Talk:Pope Celestine V

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

Next Pope to resign on own accord?[edit]

You say Benedict XVI, so what does this imply about Gregory XII (who became Pope under the condition that he would resign if that could end the Western Schism)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B103:1DCC:E933:7F48:26EB:B0AC (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

“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]

  • Just want to point out that Celestine was canonized in 1313, before Inferno was written, and it seems to me unlikely that Dante would place a canonized saint in Hell, not even in the vestibule. On the other hand, Pontius Pilate appears no place else in the entire Divine Comedy, which would seem a very odd omission. Carlo (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchs category[edit]

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

Source material[edit]

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″[edit]

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[edit]

Resolved
 – Snow close no 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]
  • Oppose, illogical. Everyking (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. He is notable because he was the Pope. The fact that he later ceased to be the Pope is completely irrelevant.--Srleffler (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Timrollpickering. Current system is fine, no need for changing it.--Staberinde (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on the long-standing conventions for monarchs. Canon law does not govern Wikipedia. 50.136.204.189 (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball close. It seemed evident to me at "because even death does not have the authority to remove this title". Peter Isotalo 20:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go for it, then I have a point, but consensus is what it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support by analogy with Richard Nixon: he resigned too, but his article isn't called President Richard Nixon even though it's customary to use the title for former US presidents even when they're no longer in office. Rybec (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't make sense. Titles of articles about presidents never contain the word "President", especially not titles of articles about US presidents. It has nothing to do with his resignation. Surtsicna (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, abdicated or died in office, it doesn't matter, he still served as pope. PS: Note that we've got Edward VIII & not Edward, Duke of Windsor. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. He's clearly best-known for being a pope. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction tag[edit]

The source cited in the papacy section (a Washington Post article) says that Celestine issued the canon for resignation after five months in office. The lead, citing the History channel says it was one of his first decrees. I have tried to remove the latter claim and restore earlier text and this has been reverted twice. Well, they can't both be true. 50.136.204.189 (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an easy solution to this, name the source that contradicts them and cite them both as a contradiction in reporting and who is saying what. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He only issued a handful of decrees. Depending where you draw the line for "one of" the first, his last could reasonably also be one of his first. Sometimes things are both the very first and very last, not either. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He issued a lot of decrees, most of them bad. That was the problem. Boniface VIII only recognized a few of them. It doesn't make much sense that he would issue a canon of resignation, then talk to Boniface about whether it was possible for him to resign. I don't consider this a matter of POV, but rather of relying on a source (the History channel) whose main objective is grabbing an audience and has done some controversial things to that end. 50.136.204.189 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit, I was just counting the ones mentioned in this article. I figure if there are seven or more, the last one shouldn't reasonably count as one of the first. I don't see it in the article, so I guess that's fixed. But yeah, History (and its sisters) should always be taken with a grain of salt. It's not all BS, but mainly for amusement. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just made an edit in an attempt to clarify this controversy. I didn't realize there was an ongoing discussion on the talk page until after I had already made the edit. I don't wish to step on anyone's toes, but I do believe the The Catholic Encyclopedia is a more reliable source with respect to this particular issue than the History Channel. DiverDave (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canonized by Pope Boniface VIII?!?!?![edit]

Under sainthood on right right panel, It says that Celestine V was canonized by Pope Boniface VIII. And, on top of that, in 1313? Didn't Pope Boniface VIII died in 1303? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.9.9 (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date papacy began[edit]

The article says his papacy began on July 5, 1294. At least two online versions of the Catholic Encyclopedia—one here and one here—say he was "elected" that day but "consecrated and crowned" on August 29. Given the word "consecrated", I'm thinking that "crowned" in this sense is like the inauguration of a US president, not like the coronation of a British monarch: that is, his term of office began then, not on the date of election. This is sort of confirmed by this article, which says he was pope for only 3 months.

Based on this reasoning it sounds to me as though August 29 is the correct date. Unless someone has a more reliable source to cite, that is, or one clearly starting that the date of election is the right date to use. I'm no expert in papal history, so I'm just tagging the July 5 date as "dubious".

--70.49.171.136 (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added note: in fact, the article itself gives the two dates, down in the body. I was only looking at the lead before. --70.49.171.136 (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another poster removed the "dubious" tags after adding a citation for the date of election. That's not the issue I'm raising; the question is whether he became pope immediately when elected or if it happened when he was "consecrated and crowned". I'm restoring the tags. --70.49.171.136 (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is written using reliable secondary sources.
I have secondary sources stating he was pope from 5 July - 13 December 1294.
  • Heresies of the High Middle Ages, by Walter Leggett Wakefield, Austin Patterson Evans, Columbia University Press, page 759.
  • Between Church and State: The Lives of Four French Prelates in the Late , by Bernard Guenée, University of Chicago Press, 52-53
  • Giotto and his Publics, by Julian Gardner, Harvard University Press, 134.
  • The Pope's Body, by Agostino Paravicini-Bagliani, University of Chicago Press, 145.
  • A History of the Crusades: The later Crusades, 1189-1311, edited by R. L. Wolff, H. W. Hazard, Kenneth Meyer Setton, University of Pennsylvania Press, 795.
You should have read both versions of the Catholic Encyclopedia thoroughly, "It is wonderful how many serious mistakes the simple old man crowded into five short months.". So even both tertiary sources state he was Pope for 5 months. This concern of yours appears to be quite singular. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think that settles it. Sorry to have been so, ah, singular. (Formerly 70.49.171.136) --174.88.133.209 (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pope Celestine V. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Celestine_V&oldid=1206589854"