Talk:Pope/Timelines: Difference between revisions
imported>Peter Jackson No edit summary |
imported>Peter Jackson mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
In brief, either Leo VIII or Benedict V was an antipope, but AP isn't sure which, so avoids numbering. The WP list correctly states this at the top, and says its list corresponds to AP, but in fact then goes on to list both as legitimate Popes, successively rather than simultaneously, a possibility AP ignores. That way WP makes the recent Pope 265th. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 18:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | In brief, either Leo VIII or Benedict V was an antipope, but AP isn't sure which, so avoids numbering. The WP list correctly states this at the top, and says its list corresponds to AP, but in fact then goes on to list both as legitimate Popes, successively rather than simultaneously, a possibility AP ignores. That way WP makes the recent Pope 265th. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 18:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
A further complication is Benedict IX, who was Pope 3 times (according to both AP & WP). Thus the numbering would vary according to whether (like the WP list) or not you follow the American convention whereby they're currently led by the 44th of their 43 presidents (mathematically, clashes between cardinal & ordinal numbers are confined to the infinite. | A further complication is Benedict IX, who was Pope 3 times (according to both AP & WP). Thus the numbering would vary according to whether (like the WP list) or not you follow the American convention whereby they're currently led by the 44th of their 43 presidents (mathematically, clashes between cardinal & ordinal numbers are confined to the infinite). [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 09:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:50, 8 March 2013
This is a bit of a mess. The Reign column in fact often gives only date of accession. Also, I think numbering should be removed, as even the official Annuario pontificio admits that for the period 963-5 it cannot tell who was the "true" Pope and who the anti-Pope. Peter Jackson 10:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Annuario pontificio per l'anno 2012, page 12*, note 19:
Leone VIII fu eletto nel concilio romano tenuto nella Basilica di S. Pietro dall'imperatore Ottone dopo la depozitione compiuta lo stesso di, 4.XII.963, di Giovanni XII, che mori, il 14 maggio successivo. Fu valida tale deposizione? Se si, Leone VIII fu Papa legittimo. Qui, come poi circa la metà del secolo XI, sono in campo elezioni (v. del resto anche la nota 10, per Dioscoro all'anno 530) sulle quali, per ragione delle difficoltà di accordare i criteri storici ed i teologico-canonici, non si riesce a decidere perentoriamente da qual parte sia la legittimità, che, esistendo in facto, assicura la legittima continuazione ininterrotta dei Successori di S. Pietro. Ma da ciò deriva un'incertezza, in alcuni casi, che ha consigliato ad abbandonare nella serie dei Papi il numero progressivo.
Peter Jackson 17:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Page 13*, note 20:
Se Leone VIII fu Papa legittimo, Benedetto V, che fu deposto il 23.VI.964 in altro sinodo al Laterano da Leone VIII e dall'imperatore Ottone I, è antipapa.
Peter Jackson 17:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
In brief, either Leo VIII or Benedict V was an antipope, but AP isn't sure which, so avoids numbering. The WP list correctly states this at the top, and says its list corresponds to AP, but in fact then goes on to list both as legitimate Popes, successively rather than simultaneously, a possibility AP ignores. That way WP makes the recent Pope 265th. Peter Jackson 18:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
A further complication is Benedict IX, who was Pope 3 times (according to both AP & WP). Thus the numbering would vary according to whether (like the WP list) or not you follow the American convention whereby they're currently led by the 44th of their 43 presidents (mathematically, clashes between cardinal & ordinal numbers are confined to the infinite). Peter Jackson 09:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)