Talk:Dean of the College of Cardinals

Dean in Conclaves

Hi there. I've been wondering something. Could anyone clear this up for me? See, the Cardinal Dean has the job of asking an elected pope if he accepts his election. But what if the Cardinal Dean is over 80? According to the rules since Paul VI, over 80 Cardinals are not to participate in Conclaves. I thought that the perhaps the Dean is require to retire upon 80, but that isn't the case. It's supposed to be a job for life, until the Dean decides to resign. One of the previous Deans (I think it was Cardinal Gantin) had already surpassed his 80th birthday by the time he retired. So how does this work out? Does the Dean just sit outside the Sistine Chapel with the attendants of the Conclave and just wait until he's called in by the junior Cardinal Deacon?JesuXPIPassio 23:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Under both Paul VI's and JPII's rules, if the Cardinal Dean is unable to be present in the conclave or unable to perform the duty, it falls to the Sub-Dean. If the Sub-Dean is also unable to perform the duty, it falls to the senior-most Cardinal Bishop present. Gentgeen 02:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC);-)

Eugênio de Araújo Sales

Um... This article mentions Eugênio de Araújo Sales as still being alive, but his article mentions him as deceased. Timotheus1 (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

update of the dean of the college of cardinals

Hi everyone, I have read that the new Dean of the college of cardinals is Card.Giovan Battista Re.Could you please verify this news?And then update?.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.242.112 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Title of Dean, early

Can anyone provide any contemporary evidence for the use of the title of Dean in the 12th, 13th, or 14th century?? The authors referred to in note 3 merely seem to confirm who is the senior cardinal at any time. The issue is whether he is called "Dean" (Decanus). Vicedomino (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Error: Hugh de Billon

Cardinal Hugh Aycelin de Billon was not created a cardinal until May 16, 1288. He was therefore junior to Cardinal Bianchi. One cannot go by the title Bishop of Ostia. The bishop of Ostia was not Dean of the Sacred College ex officio until a decree of Pope Paul IV united the two titles. Cardinal Hugh was never Dean—and I reiterate my complaint that the title of Dean is anachronistic. Cardinal Latino Malabranca, who died on August 9, 1294, was succeeded as prior Episcoporum by Cardinal Gerardo Bianchi. Vicedomino (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Error: Latino Malabranca Orsini

Cardinal Latino did not cease being Prior Episcoporum in 1289, to make way for Hugh Aycelin. Cardinal Latino presided over the Conclave of 1292-1294. At the beginning of the Sede Vacante, it is he who attempts to assemble a Conclave, and Jacopo Stefaneschi specifically calls him ipse Latinus, Ordine pontificum primus ("Vita Coelestini Papae V Opus Metricum," in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores III. 1, 613-641.). His name occurs in first place on the Certificate of Election of Celestine V: Augustinus Theiner (Editor), Caesaris S. R. E. Cardinalis Baronii, Od. Raynaldi et Jac. Laderchii Annales Ecclesiastici Tomus Vicesimus Quintus, 1286-1312 (Barri-Ducis: Ludovicus Guerin 1871), under the year 1294 § 6, p. 131. He made the complementary speech in reply to King Charles II on behalf of the College of Cardinals, Responsa Duci digesta Latinus Attulit, et placido diffudit verba lepore (in the words of Jacopo Stefaneschi). Vicedomino (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dean of the College of Cardinals. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070506074146/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Existence of College of Cardinals and Title of Dean

May we agree that you can't have a Dean of an institution that does not yet exist?

Most scholars are agreed that the College of Cardinals came into existence in the 12th century, though some still speculate that it developed in the late 11th century. Certainly, the earliest piece of evidence comes from the Council of Reims in 1148. See: John F. Broderick, S.J., "The Sacred College of Cardinals: Size and Geographical Composition (1099–1986)," Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, Vol. 25 (1987), pp. 7-71, at p. 9 note 6. And see: Edith Pasztor, "Riforma della chiesa nel secolo XI e l'origine del Collegio dei Cardinali: Problemi e ricerche," in: Studio sul Medioevo cristiano offerti a Raffaello Morghen, II, (Roma 1974), pp. 609-625, arguing that the College of Cardinals did not yet exist at the end of the 11th century.

Without the existence of the College, of course, a Dean of the College of Cardinals would be impossible. The list in the article, which is only a list of bishops of Ostia and sadly mistaken on the notion that the Dean was always the cardinal who was Bishop of Ostia, now absurdly carries its fantasies back to the eighth century. Will this nonsense never end?

When is the first actually attested person using the title Dean (decanus)? Cite me a source.

Paul Hinschius (1869). System des katholischen kirchenrechts mit besonderer rücksicht auf Deutschland (in German). Vol. Erster Band (vol. 1). Berlin: I. Guttentag. pp. 361, with note 2. states that it was first used at the beginning of the 16th century.

All of the alleged Deans before 1148 are without references, and I propose deleting each and every one of them.

--Vicedomino (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• 1148 is not the date of creation of the Sacred College of Cardinals but the first time that exactly this name appears in the sources for this institution. The research that started with Hans Walter Klewitz indicate that College of Cardinals came into existence toward the end of 11th century or under Paschalis II at the latest, but clearly not in the way that this or another Pope decreed the creation of this body - it was a product of the evolution of the Roman Cardinalate. E. g. Orderic Vitalis (d. 1142) referred to the "Sacred Senatus" when he talked about the Roman Cardinals The title Decanus Sacri Collegii is certainly an anachronism before the 15th or 16th century but it does not mean that such a function that corresponded to what was later caled the deanship of the College did not exist. Before the 16th century the most senior cardinal bishop was called prior episcoporum [cardinalium], prior episcoporum ac omnium cardinalium, primas cardinalium or so, but his preeminence among cardinals was clearly recognised. I doubt whether the introduction of the name dean of the Sacred College instead of prior episcoporum around the beginning of 16th century added anything to this function. But certainly we should delete the names before the early 12th century CarlosPn (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming exactly what I and my cited authorities say. But I did NOT say that 1148 was the date of the creation.

As to your remark, "Before the 16th century the most senior cardinal bishop was called prior episcoporum [cardinalium], prior episcoporum ac omnium cardinalium, primas cardinalium or so, but his preeminence among cardinals was clearly recognised. I doubt whether the introduction of the name dean of the Sacred College instead of prior episcoporum around the beginning of 16th century added anything to this function...., I already drew attention to prior in my comments above, under "Hugh de Billom" and "Latino Malabranca Orsini". Your use of the word 'preeminence' disturbs me; "ordine pontificum primus" and "prior episcoporum" mean nothing more than senior cardinal bishop.

--Vicedomino (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"ordine pontificum primus" and "prior episcoporum" mean nothing more than senior cardinal bishop... Ok, but what the difference you see between Dean of the College of Cardinals and Senior Cardinal bishop? Of course, today, the dean is freely elected by the cardinal-bishops. But this is only recent provision (1965). Before 1965 the Dean was the most senior cardinal-bishop. It's true, that on 22 Aug 1555 Pope Paul IV excluded non-residents of Roman Curia from the deanship of the College. But, when he issued such a provision, he referred to the deanship as to the function that had already existed. Besides, there were only a few cases that actually senior cardinal bishop was not dean between 1555 and 1965. I think that we have to remember that the creation of such lists often may lead to anachronisms. E.g. the title of the Pope or even Bishop of Rome also did not exist in the 1st century. Neverthless, for various reasons it is common to accept the list presented by Vatican that starts with St. Peter the Apostle. In the Polish wikipedia I've divided the list of the Deans in two parts: the first begins in 12th century and is titled Priores episcoporum ac omnium cardinalium, the second begins with Oliviero Carafa and is titled Dziekani Kolegium Kardynalskiego (Deans of the College of Cardinals). CarlosPn (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I, of course, was speaking only of the period before Paul IV. I was trying repeatedly to clean up abuses committed by people who were, in fact, engaging in original research (so called, according to the Wikipedia definition). I will say this little bit more about the "function" of the person called "prior" or "Dean: While the Pope lives, he has no function; he can't even summon a meeting of the College of which he is the head. And, as we saw in the Conclave of 2013, when the Dean and the Sub-Dean are debarred from participating because of age (this, of course, only pertains to the period of 1965 and after), the senior Cardinal Bishop carries out his "functions" as Chair, and the College is positively forbidden to take major decisions that change current policy. Even in the first reference to the College, in 1148 at Reims, the College is sitting as a body of advisors to the Pope, who is present and presiding over the session. Hence perhaps, Otto of Frising's choice of the term sacra cardinalium senatus, looking to the Roman Senate, which was an advisory body to the magistrate, who was one of the consuls, or a praetor, or later the Emperor. But the analogy cannot be pressed very far at all.

Thank you for deleting most of the unreferenced and unsupportable material from the list of names.

--Vicedomino (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

List in Table form

May I suggest that we make the list of the deans in a table born do that we can also see their information (ie. life dates (with ages), date of creation, date opted for the Order of Bishops (prior episcopum), and past titles, sees or deaconries held) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoXIPP (talk • contribs) 11:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Tables are pretty. But tables are also harder to work with when adding or deleting material. This article has so many unverified items, and is so much in need of pruning and annotating. The adding of the suggested information is impossible for at least half of the list, since the information does not exist. You would be creating huge amounts of empty space without improving the content of the article. It is (I trust you will agree) that content and accuracy is what is important. Vicedomino (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)