Talk:Habemus papam

message: Does anyone know what happens if the Senior Cardinal Deacon is elected Pope?  Does he announce his own election?  Does the new Senior Cardinal Deacon announce it (ruining the surprise by simply appearing, as this makes it obvious the previous Senior Cardinal Deacon was elected)?  Has this happened before? OCNative 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The next senior Cardinal Deacon makes the announcement, having been elevated to Cardinal Protodeacon. Tsk070 01:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When protodeacon elected to the papacy

message: Give announce of election Pius XII. Announce election cardinal Dominioni. Please search in webs and give it on page
:Done. :o) Švitrigaila 10:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pius XII'habemus papam

message: Are we sure that the Habemus Papam was always anounced by the protodeacon? We can search far in the past to find who was the protodeacon when this or that pope was elected, but the procedure of the anouncement may have changed. For example, in Philippe Levillain (editor), The Papacy: An Encyclopedia, Routledge, 2002, 1780 p.  we can read that the announcement phrase changed and was simplified since Pius XI was elected. Can someone find informations on the subject? Švitrigaila 10:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is beyond doubt that protodeacons gave the announcment of the election of new Pontiff already in XV century, and it does not seem that this custom has been introduced in that century but much earlier. See Francis Burkle-Young: Papal elections in the Fifteenth Century. It is known that the election of Pope Urban VI in 1378 was announced by Cardinal Giacomo Orsini, who was not protodeacon at that time, but was the most senior cardinal-deacon present in the conclave. Also the election of Antipope Clement VII shortly afterwards was announced by senior cardninal-deacon among participants Pierre Flandrin . However, the election of Pope Urban II in 1088 was announced by Pietro Aldobrandini, Cardinal-Bishop of Albano, but according to decree "In Nomine Domini" of Pope Nicholas II cardinal-deacons had no electoral rights at that time. CarlosPn (talk) 03:11 p.m. January 7, 2008 (CET)
Thank you very much for all these informations. I think they could be added to the article itself. Švitrigaila (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubt about the proto deacons 

message: If an Eastern Rite Catholic were elected to the papacy would the part of the Habemus Papam referring the Romanae Ecclasiae be ammended accordingly? If so could this be put in the article?--Captdoc (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he is a Cardinal, no, since a Cardinal is a Cardinal S.R.E. however Eastern he may be. (Which is precisely the reason why Easterners' feelings about receiving the Cardinalate are somewhat not unanimous). The Holy Roman Church is the Diocese of Rome (in her function as leading the Worldwide Church, we may add). If he is not a Cardinal, the whole phrase would fall away anyway I think, but maybe an "Episcopum" or "Patriarcham" would be placed somewhere, or Eminentissimum (which is for Cardinals Only) even replaced by a Beatissimum. --93.133.248.57 (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Catholic 

message: I can't believe that someone delete it the recordings of the Habemus Papam, that's terrible!!!! Lefairh (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recordings 

message: Common noun should be small 'p' in English and Latin shouldn't it? (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Capitalized in Latin in the Holy See's report of the latest use.  Seems an authoritative source.  Esoglou (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:CAPS]]

message: The French and Italian Wikipedias note that the accusative is the actual preferred grammatical form for the papal name although in four cases (John XXIII, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI), the genitive case was used.  Both the French and Italian Wikipedias of these article include the information and why from a grammatical standpoint the accusative is the preferred form (the Italian article notes some Latin grammars). I'm including it at this time pending verification and confirmation.  --Harvzsf (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of accusative or genitive case for the papal names in announcements

message: In the "Announcement" section, I think the comments on regnal name numbering do not seem to recognize the functional difference between Pope John Paul I and Pope Francis' papal names.
When a regnal name is compound, there are multiple ways to choose the ordinal number.  Some assign the number to the first name and treat the second name as a kind of surname (e.g. King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden).  He is the sixteenth of traditionally recognized Swedish kings named Carl (or Charles).  He is also the second to have the combined name Carl (or Charles) Gustaf.  Though this would have been unusual in Sweden, he could have been Carl Gustaf II (basing the number on the combination) or Carl XVI Gustaf (basing the number on his first name only).  He chose the latter, which, admittedly, is more typical for Swedish kings' regnal names.
There was no tradition of dual names for popes before Pope John Paul I.  But I believe Cardinal Luciani had the same option available to him when he chose his compound name.  He could have chosen to be known as Pope John XXIV Paul (basing the ordinal number on the first name and treating the second as a surname).  In order to make clear that he was basing the number on the combination "John Paul," it was necessary to specify in his announcement that he was John Paul I (not John XXIV Paul).  The first compound name in papal history would have created huge confusion as to its proper number if that number had not been specified at the Habemus Papam announcement.
There was no such necessity at the announcement of Pope Francis' election.  He was the first to choose this regnal name and there was no chance of confusion on what his number should be.  That, I believe, is why no number was given at his Habemus Papam announcement.
I don't know a short, simple way to explain that in this article, and it's probably not necessary.  But this section, as written, seems to imply that it is basically arbitrary whether a first-time regnal name includes "the First" as part of its announcement.  I think there is actually a clear reason John Paul wanted himself specified as "the First" and Francis did not have the same need, and this section could be reworded to reflect that.
Ajgreg (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on Papal Numbers