Talk:Pope-elect Stephen

Capitalize "pope"?

Should the word Pope be capitalized? The article contained both usages when I got here. Jdavidb 15:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it should, except when it stands before a name. I'm not 100% sure, though. Alensha 20:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article List of 10 shortest-reigning popes states quite contrary to this article. It states that S. II was not listed, and that he is listed now in offical list of popes. Which article is correct? Saigon_from_europe

• • Saigon, this article is correct. And now, the other one is, too. GeeZee 19:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article doesn't really talk about Pope-elect Stephen that much. It introduces him briefly, then goes off on a tangent (which comprises the majority of the article) about naming conventions for subsequent popes in subsequent centuries. Major edit needed by a well-informed writer --Bucky 00:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

JPII?

An anonymous editor added this sentence:

Pope John Paul II did not recognize Pope Stephen II as a past pope so many decided to follow him.

Since the article says that Stephen II was "delisted" by the Vatican in 1959, 20 years before JPII became pope, I've removed this. --Jfruh 17:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

--I would like to see the citation for the claim that he was delisted "at the Second Vatican Council". That would be remarkable, if true -- which it is not. More likely, his name did not appear in one of the Libri that the Holy See releases. If so, this would not indicate even a Pontifical judgment, and far less a Conciliar judgment. The question of the validity of Pope-elect Stephen would thus still be an open question within Catholic Theology. The source cited ( http://books.google.com/books?id=4-R8SSzKLewC&pg=PA13&dq=Stephen+elected+Pope+died+752&cd=7#v=onepage&q=Stephen%20elected%20Pope%20died%20752&f=false ) is unscholarly, does not cite sources, and contains information known by myself to be false (such as stating that perhaps Catholic theology would consider some Bishops to be invalidly ordained because Pope Sergius III nullified the clerical orders of those ordained by Pope Formosus. The lack of understanding of Catholic theology implicit in such a claim is astounding). I would suggest eliminating this as a source and finding something more solid.--76.226.205.129 (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Article's title

Discussions about this article's title can be seen here : Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Numbering_popes_called_Stephen. Švitrigaila 17:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fork

I agree with the above poster: this article has very little to do with the Pope-elect. Most of this article should be forked into something else. Probably Naming of Popes named Stephen, or something along those lines. —  MusicMaker 03:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote it. I wrote a long detailed article about the regnal names of the popes too... in French! (fr:Nom de règne des papes) I'm very proud of it, even if it may not deserve it's bronze star. If someone wants to translate it, he's welcome.

You say this article has very little to do with the pope-elect. Yes, but all what is known about him is in the article: "Stephen, a priest of Rome elected pope in March of 752 to succeed Pope Zachary, died of apoplexy three days later, before being ordained a bishop." And that's all. There is nothing else in the better sources (Philippe Levillain (editor), The Papacy: An Encyclopedia, Routledge, 2002, 1780 p. ISBN 0-415-93752-3). I don't see the point to make another page Naming of popes named Stephen. No one will ever find it directly. This page will only be reached by links from other pages. And since the first sentence of the article is necessary to understand the following, what's the advantage to have a long article beginning by this setence, and a second short one containing only this sentence?

I am always very glad to have the others' opinion about what I write. Švitrigaila 12:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a bad article, by any means. However, it doesn't stay on topic. Since I don't speak French, I'm not going to attempt to read your article on the French Wikipedia, but perhaps you might want to translate it into English and post it at Regal naming of Popes. You're right, I think having an article just on the naming of Popes named Stephen is a little too strict a topic. No one will directly search for "Naming of Popes named Stephen", but having so much information in an article on someone who isn't officially a Pope, who won't come up on any lists of Popes, and is basically an interesting historical footnote isn't necessarily helping anyone, either. If this article is only two sentences, that's perfectly okay: unfortunately, that's all history should accord this man. In its current state, I think the article is burying information that's interesting and important to several other articles.

I've just been reading some of your other posts on this subject -- I didn't realize that the naming of the articles on Popes named Stephen had been subject of such debate! I truly hate to stick my nose into this subject (about which, admittedly, I know very little), but I feel kind of strongly about this article being widely off-topic.

Should you decide to translate the other article -- and, again, I think that's the best course of action -- I will be more than happy to give it a read for you once it's complete. I think some other editors may have scared you off from contributing in English; don't let them! If you can get the French article to a functional translation, I'll happily help you to get it idiomatic and conversational. —  MusicMaker 06:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this long answer. It's always a pleasure to discover one day that all the time I lost writing those stupid articles was not totally vain and that some people actually read them. I was looking for an adjective to discribe my state of mind on the English Wikipedia... and I found it when I looked at your own User page: wikibonked! I'm very tired of it. On the French Wikipedia I succeded to impose some of my points of view, but it's too difficult on the English one. You can see the time and energy I've lost just in order too convince three users that Pope Stephen IX was called Stephen IX and not Stephen X. I have other wind mills like this one, and I'm far from winning those fights. So I don't want to translate myself my French Nom de règne des papes for three reasons: 1) my English is not good enough, 2) I don't want to loose again to much time on one topic, 3) I want to keep the control on what I write. I can check regularly the French article and revert any non pertinent edit I see. I deeply trust the translators who translated it into German and Italian. But I fear everybody will make a mess of this work on the English Wikipedia if it were translated.

In general, I am deeply concerned about onomastics. That includes every naming conventions on Wikipedia. I am a fierce opponent of a wildly spread principle on Wikipedia: "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". I think that could be the last criterion to name an article, not the first one. It gives the priority to the received idea upon the fact, as if the role of an encyclopedia was to reinforce the reader's certainty rather than to teach him what he doesn't already know an to correct him if his knowledge is false! Before participating to this project, I was sure everybody would share my opinion. They don't. A lot of users think it's scandalous to be contradicted by a fact. To give just one example, the next to last emperor of Japan is officially called Emperor Shōwa in every official source and on the website of the imperial family. But since he is better known as Hirohito in the West, the article is named Hirohito, even if this nickname may be derogatory in Japan.

But I lose myself. Let's come back to the pope-elect. You say about him "someone who isn't officially a Pope, who won't come up on any lists of Popes". It's not really true since he was on every list of popes up to 1960. He's not totally an unknown man, despite we don't know anything about him. Some people may look for informations about him. Maybe it could be better to add in the article after the first sentence: that's all we know about him. I still think it's interresting to keep all the informations in one article because, if you are looking for an information about him, the only interresting one is the fact that the question about his legitimacy caused a mess in the numbering of popes called Stephen. Had you ever heard of it before reading this article? I like the principle to learn a fact you are not looking for, and you never would because you have never heard of it. On the other hand, if you are looking for informations about the Popes Stephens' numbering mess, you can't avoid the tiny personnal data about the pope-elect in the article, since it's the base of the problem.

I don't think "the article is burying information that's interesting and important to several other articles". This article can be reached very simply from every Pope Stephen articles. Look for exemple at the first line of Pope Stephen IV. Whatever the name you want to give to this article, it won't change the way to reach it.

So I still think it's better to keep all in one article. But it can be improved by letting the first lines on his personnal data, by adding a remark that it's all we have about him, and by making a sub-section with a title to explain in details the numbering problem. It's not worth to divide the informations on two articles. Either you'd have to click on links to have the following of the story, or you'll have to copy all the facts of one of the two articles into the other. And that's very unusefull; Wkipedia has automatic redirects, let's use them.

Švitrigaila 11:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote:

I am a fierce opponent of a wildly spread principle on Wikipedia: "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". I think that could be the last criterion to name an article, not the first one.

I couldn't disagree more. I understand your point that an encyclopaedia should enlighten people, and I'm pretty sure that's how most people use Wikipedia - to learn something they didn't already know. However, people will search for articles under the names that they already do know - I know I do. Most people in the West don't know that Hirohito's "official" imperial name was Showa, so they will look up Hirohito - and the article will then inform them of the naming conventions of Japanese emperors, or link to another article that does.

There is no reason to confuse people anymore than need be. Sometimes is confusing enough for me to see the English names (In Danish, John Paul is Johannes Paul, kings named Henry are Henrik etc.), but in an English language encyclopaedia, the anglicized forms should be used. In the Danish wiki, we use the Danish forms, in the French wiki you use the French forms etc. --dllu 22:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

...they will look up Hirohito - and the article will then inform them of the naming conventions of Japanese emperors, or link to another article that does.

I prefer to say: ...they will look up Hirohito - and the program redirects them directly to the "Emperor Shōwa" page without any effort. Wikipedia has a huge advantage on classic paper encyclopedias: the REDIRECT fonction. I can't see the point of a redirect in the other direction. That means you look at Emperor Shōwa, then a redirect bring you on the Hirohito page, and then you read that his "good" name is "Emperor Shōwa" and not "Hirohito"! That's against all logic. Redirects must allways be from erroneous, unaccurate or unprecise article names to correct ones.

And once again, "Hirohito" is not the "English name" of Empereor Shōwa, neither it is his "anglicized name". It's his personnal name, like George Bush's personnal name is George. And it is as unappropriate to call the emperor "Hirohito" than to call George Bush "George", if not more. "Fujiyama" is not the "English name" of Fujisan. "Hara-kiri" is not the "English name" of seppuku. I fight the expression "English name" every time I see it on Wikipedia misused in an unappropriate context, and it happend very often. I'm tired to read here and then than "Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov" is the "English name" of Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow, and so on. Švitrigaila 11:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Never a Pope

I've removed the Papal Infobox and the Papal succession box, from this article. Stephen (as the title clearly states), was never Pope. GoodDay 20:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

--This is not clearly demonstrated by the article. According to the predominant school in Catholic theology, someone becomes Pope at the moment of election, even if that person is not yet consecrated Bishop [see, for instance, Pope Pius XII on October 5, 1957 in an audience on the lay apostolate: "Even if a layman were elected pope, he could accept the election only if he were ready and willing to be ordained. But the power to teach and govern, as well as the divine gift of infallibility, would be granted to him from the very moment he accepted election, even before his ordination."]. Pope-elect Stephen was also listed in the Liber Pontificarius until recently. I do not believe that it is Wikipedia's role to judge that he is not Pope whom scholars in the field have a historically been divided about. Pope-elect Stephen should have the Papal Infobox and the Papal succession box. Even anti-Popes have a box [cf. anti-Pope John XXIII]. --76.226.205.129 (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Confused discussion of canonical issues

This article gives the impression that the idea of a Pope becoming Pope upon accepting election has been abandoned by the Catholic Church post-1960. On the contrary, the 1983 Code of Canon Law states:

Can. 332 ß1 The Roman Pontiff acquires full and supreme power in the Church when, together with episcopal consecration, he has been lawfully elected and has accepted the election. Accordingly, if he already has the episcopal character, he receives this power from the moment he accepts election to the supreme pontificate. If he does not have the episcopal character, he is immediately to be ordained Bishop.

Removing Stephen II from the list has nothing to do with abandoning the position that a Pope becomes Pope upon acceptance of election, but rather from the fact the Stephen was not a bishop at the time of election, so he would have needed to be ordained to the order of bishop in order to become Pope.

Also, it is hardly the place of Wikipedia to declare anything "settled", especially since Britannica and other reputable sources regard this matter as ambiguous. Unsubstantiated statements such as this are not helpful:

Contrary to a widespread idea, the removal of pope Stephen from the list is accepted by most historians[!!] and is no longer a matter of debate within the Church

This is a pitiful attempt to add authority to the editor's opinion. The inclusion or exclusion of Stephen from the Church's list of recognized popes is not a concern of historians, but a question of canon law. The historical facts of the case have never been in dispute, but rather the application of canon law to these facts. JoeFink (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't say the contrary. When I wrote the article, I meant clearly what you say : "Removing Stephen II from the list has nothing to do with abandoning the position that a Pope becomes Pope upon acceptance of election, but rather from the fact the Stephen was not a bishop at the time of election, so he would have needed to be ordained to the order of bishop in order to become Pope." If you think the article is not clear or poorly written, don't hesitate to modify it. Up to now, I'm nearly the only contributor of it, and I would be glad if other users could add new facts or improvements. As for the sentence about historians, you can erase it if you think it's anappropriate. Švitrigaila (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This article should explain why the Vatican delisted him. At the moment it only states that he was removed from the list, nut gives no explanation. Also we still need some biographical information about the man himself, 18 months after somebody first raised this. Richard75 (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know exactly why Stephen was erased from the Annuario pontificio's lists at this time exactly. Neither do I know why antipope Christopher was erased in the 20th century and not earlier or later. I don't know why pope Silvester III is still considered a valid pope and not an antipope (I have an opinion about it, but no facts). So I can't invent. About Stephen's life, nothing is known except what is already in the first line of the article! Švitrigaila (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I rewrote the paragraph regarding Stephen's current status. The Annuario pontificio lists generally don't provide an explanation of why someone is included or excluded, and these decisions have been reversed on more than one occasion, so it is a mistake to suggest that the issue of Stephen's legitimacy has been permanently settled.

The earlier paragraphs try to recapitulate the history of canonical views on papal legitimacy. I'm not sure how accurate this account is, or even if it's appropriate for such a big topic to be covered in this specific article, but it smacks of original research, as I am not aware of any secondary source that pretends to have a definitive answer to these issues. JoeFink (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Another view

Ok, I know that we are not going to change objective reality here in an encyclopedia and the Church will do what the Church does but let us consider this in light of Peter. We can not be sure of exactly moment in time Peter became what we think of as a bishop. Was it when he was called, was it later when Jesus specifically sent him and the others out on the little mini missions that they went on or was it at the moment of giving the keys. It may well have been at the last supper.

It could be possible that Peter was the Pope, as in the non divine leader of all true Christians on the planet, and still have yet to be a bishop or even a priest in the sacramental sense. I don´t know that to be true and would certainly like someone who knows more about this to inform me but from what I know it seems like it might be possible. I suppose the real question would be if people were looking to Stephen as the leader yet or not. We could also think of this as the Holy Spirit´s way of not giving us a bad Pope but to say that might be to seem very negative. In any case the Church has spoken on the issue but I just would like to know what this means in the nature of the papacy.

Long Live Pope Benedict XVI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.44.217 (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Capitalize the word "Pope"

As a specific title within the Roman Catholic Church, "Pope" is a proper noun. -The Mysterious El Willstro 71.181.144.209 (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)