Talk:Jus exclusivae

Use of Numbers for Dates

If dates are to be inserted into a Wikipedia article, I suggest spelling out the month. Many numbers are ambiguous. For example, 6/7/52 might mean June 7, 1952, or it might mean July 6, 1952. Spelling out the month will make it clear.John Paul Parks (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

I think there was at least one occasion where the Cardinal carrying the Jus exclusivae option deliberately dawdled on the way to the conclave, so he would be too late to carry it out. Jackiespeel (talk)

That would make a quirky episode to relate if you can find the reference.--Gazzster (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That strikes me as improbable. Aren't all the cardinal electors locked up in the conclave at the same time?John Paul Parks (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Pius X's strictures were repeated and amplified by Pope Paul VI in his constitution Summi Pontificis Eligendo (October 1, 1975), in the oath required of Cardinal-electors (Caput III. 49):

itemque nullo modo a quavis civili potestate, quovis nomine, munus proponendi veto seu exclusivam, etiam sub forma simplicis optationis, esse recepturos, neque ipsum veto, qualibet ratione nobis cognitum, patefacturos; nullique interventui, intercessioni aliique cuilibet modo, quo auctoritates saeculares cuiuslibet ordinis et gradus, vel quivis hominum coetus vel personae voluerint sese Pontifìcis electioni immiscere, auxilium vel favorem praestaturos.

The officials participating in the Conclave also have to swear an oath, in which the following is included (Caput II. 46):

Pariter promitto et iuro me nulli interventui, intercessioni aliive cuilibet modo, quo civiles potestates cuiuslibet ordinis et gradus, vel quivis hominum coetus vel personae voluerint sese electioni Pontificis immiscere, auxilium vel favorem praestaturum.

Hecataeus2001 (talk)

Parvum lingua latina parlam - links to translations?

These are generic prohibitions against interference of various kinds by various persons. Various popes issued statements like this even while the veto power was quasi-recognized, because it’s not just interference. The jus exclusivae we’re concerned with in this entry is something much more specific: the right to veto a candidate for the papacy. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Will mention [1].

Referring to my comment of several years ago - it was something read in a book somewhat before I got involved with Wikipedia. Given that in the past cardinals at times arrived too late to participate in conclaves 'deliberately going slowly' may have occurred. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Too late

At the moment this entry refers to two conclaves where a cardinal arrived too late to exercise a veto as planned. I’ve removed the one involving Mazarin in 1644. For an explanation see Talk:Papal conclave, 1644#Mazarin veto. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I’ve added sources for the other instance (1846), as well as a note that it’s disputed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Conclave of 1314-16

For a long time this entry has mentioned the Papal conclave, 1314–1316 where the Count of Forez vetoed Arnaud Fournier on behalf of Philip, Count of Poitiers, the future King Philip V of France. (my italics) This has nothing to do with ius exclusivae. It's long before anyone developed the idea of this right. Philip had the cardinals locked in a Lyon convent at the time and a committee of cardinals had been delegated to identify an acceptable compromise candidate. Philip wasn't exercising a legal right. It was a pure exertion of power. (BTW, Philip was not yet king, as he was awaiting the outcome of the pregnancy of his late brother's widow. And the conclave had been under way for two years and the Italian cardinals had fled.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

As the person who started off the article (having come across the Cardinal Rampolla usage) - there is probably a case for a section on 'other interventions by secular rulers' such as the above.

Are/were there equivalents of the jus exclusivae in other faiths? (There will probably always be some informal/off the record input and similar.) Jackiespeel (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think other interventions are quite off topic. Other legal claims, like the rights of Byzantine emperors, etc., are best dealt with as background. The use of force and other extra-legal influence probably should be included on papal conclave. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not trying to 'control' an article I created - just seeing how it could be developed/put in its wider context (and some topics have fuzzy borders/it is convenient to discuss which is the most appropriate of several linked articles on which to place information on one specific page). Jackiespeel (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"Philip wasn't exercising a legal right." There is no "legal right" called "jus exclusivae," it's the name of monarchical claim, not a right. -2600:1:9A04:641A:E7A:90CE:C19E:85E4 (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

1740

I've removed this: Papal conclave, 1740 – Pier Marcellino Corradini, by Philip V of Spain

For an explanation see Talk:Papal conclave, 1740. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)