by Anura Guruge
Before you come after me with a pitchfork (or worse) PLEASE read my apologia and rationale for doing this.
I also want to start by pointing out ERRORS in my first papal book. So please start here.
For errors in my "The Next Pope" book please go here.
I also want to point out, as ever, that I may be wrong. That happens, since I flirt with fallibility on a daily basis. So PLEASE don't take any of what I list here as absolute without doing YOUR own research. If I am wrong PLEASE let me know. I will fix the mistakes and own up to my errors. This is also but a partial list.
1. 'The Next Pope' by Peter Hebblethwaite
(revised and edited by Margaret Hebblethwaite)
ISBN: 0-06-063777-3, 2000
Page 4: "Moreover, conclaves did not happen in the Sistine Chapel until after the collapse of the Papal States in 1870."
Ah! I have tried to parse that statements all which ways until Christmas to see if I was missing something here. But, I am sure it says what it says!
Yes, the 1846, 1831, 1829 & 1823 conclaves were held at the Quirinal Palace and the 1800 conclave in Venice. But the prior 38 conclaves, going back to 1484, were centered around the Sistine. During the first twelve of these, 1484 to 1559, all the cardinals were even billeted inside the Sistine. Thus, in my opinion, that statement is dead wrong.
Page 27: "In the first millennium, popes did not emerge from the college of cardinals, since the cardinals in the modern sense did not exist."
Ah! Well YOU could play games with the caveat 'modern sense,' and say that the 'College' didn't come to be until 1148-1150. But even with that, the spirit of this sentence is SO WRONG. Let us just say the 769 Roman Synod convened by Stephen III (IV) and its stipulation that popes must be elected from among cardinal priests and cardinal deacons. My chart in this post provides a quick summary.
Page 165: "... William Wakefield Baum ..., he is the only U.S. cardinal to have ever voted in a conclave -- in fact two -- having become a cardinal in 1976."
That 'ever' in front of 'voted' makes this statement false as it stands. If the caveat 'living' is added after the 'only' this would work(given that this book was published in 2000). The way it reads is misleading and wrong. James Gibbons voted in the 1903 conclave. John Murphy Farley voted in the 1914 conclave etc. Eight US cardinals participated in the August 1978 conclave and nine in the October 1978 conclave. This should have been caught by an editor. But maybe this book was not edited. That would explain all these fundamental errors.
Page 139: "And after all, the pope lives in Italy ..."
This is is post-1929. The pope lives in the sovereign city-state of Vatican City -- with even Castel Gandolfo falling within the extraterritorial bounds of the Vatican City. This was obviously meant to be a 'cute' statement, but it is inappropriate, misleading and worst of all, wrong.
Page 57: Talking about the voting process says "... the whole process is repeated ..."
Not so. The second ballot of each morning and afternoon session is different from the first. For a start there is no need to elect new Scrutineers, Infirmarii and Revisers, or to take a new oath.
Page 32: There is a poem here by the Polish poet Juliusz Slowacki, prefaced by a claim that it forecasts that there would be a Slavic pope [i.e., John Paul II] in the 20th century.
I think it is more than a stretch to make that claim. It sure says, in the first line "... will not -- Italian-like -- take fright." Yes, the poet was Polish. But that doesn't mean that any non-Italian has to be Slavic. This one is not as grave as the prior two, but it still gave me pause.
2. 'Lives of Popes' by Richard P. McBrien
ISBN: 0-06-087807-X, 1997
Page 453: <Longest Pontificates> #10 Sylvester I is given as 20 years, and 11 months.
Typo. The dates are right and you can clearly see that it should be 21 years, and 11 months. But that messes up the table. Sylvester needs to go up #8. Leo the Great becomes #9 etc.
I have others issues with this book. But I will bide my time on that. On page 2 there is a mention as to how much the author relied on J.N.D. Kelly's 'Oxford Dictionary of Popes.' As an author myself I know how reliant you can be on reference books like that. But there is reliance and there is .... That can wait.
3. 'Behind Locked Doors, A History of Papal Elections'
by Frederic J. Baumgartner
ISBN: 1-4039-6962-0, 2003
[This was one of my favorite papal books. I liked it so much I have 3 copies so that one is always at hand. I have also had the honor of exchanging a few emails with Prof. Baumgartner. Of late I have become quite perturbed by the number of errors I have found in this book -- many of them quite serious.]
Page 22: The first sentence of the last paragraph that talks about Stephen III's 769 decree ...
This is a garbled, confused sentence at best. In the end it really falls down flat. Contrary to the claim, there is nothing similar, whatsoever, between the 769 and 1959 edicts. The statement about limiting candidates to the cardinal bishops ... is, alack, wrong. Not limited. Yet again, please check my chart in this post to see the differences between 769 and 1059 and who the electors and candidates were in each case.
Page 34: About 2/3 down. "... senior cardinal-deacon gave him his name, ..."
Professor Baumgartner might have been having an off-day when he wrote this page (and I know how that goes). This statement about the protodeacon appears to be a 'mind-warp' -- but I could be wrong. As we all know, the protodeacon still has the HONOR of announcing to the world, for the first time, who the new pope is and the name by which he wishes to be known. But, other than that ... the protodeacon, nor anybody else for that matter, ever had the prerogative to tell a new pope as to what name he could assume. So, I can't figure out this statement.
Page 34: Towards the very bottom. "... delegated them to choose Pope Honorius III, ..."
Lets get the easy part out of the way. No, the committee of two was NOT delegated to choose 'Honorius III' as is stated! The committee of two was delegated to choose the next pope and they chose Cardinal Cencio Savelli who opted to be Honorius III. There is a difference. The description of this whole election in Perugia is jumbled and badly portrayed. Yes, there were only two cardinals in Perugia when Innocent III died. The book implies that the other cardinals, NOT in Perugia, delegated those two to choose the next pope. That does not appear to be what really happened. Fifteen other cardinals were in Perugia two days later to begin the election. That is not adequately portrayed, thus creating the wrong impression.
Page 37: Middle of the first paragraph. "... eleven had been identified as favoring the emperor, ..."
There was no emperor at that time! The Viterbo election/conclave being discussed happened during the 62 year interregnum following Emperor Frederick II's death in 1250. At this point there wasn't even a presumptive emperor, the last of Frederick's line, from the Hohenstauffens dynasty having been recently killed -- as stated earlier in that paragraph.
Page 40: 9th line. "... and after five days ..."
NO! After eight days (on the ninth day of the conclave). Read Ubi periculum. Three days of standard fare. Then five days of one dish per meal. THEN the bread, water and a little wine diet. Three and five = eight. This is careless.
Page 41: 2nd line, 2nd full paragraph. "... found themselves confined in conclave."
Nope. There was no conclave at this election, Ubi periculum having been suspended -- as spelled out in the previous paragraph! Oops.
Page 42: 9th line down. "... who met in the palace of Santa Sabina, ..."
Oops. A mix up with two elections hence. This one was in Viterbo, again. It was held at the Papal Palace. Not in Santa Sabina. Santa Sabina was never the site for a papal election or conclave, though the the professor thinks otherwise -- twice. See page 43 below.
Page 42: 7 lines up in main para. "A month after his election ..."
The Sicilian uprising (a.k.a Sicilian Vespers) took place in March 28, 1282. Martin IV was elected Feb. 22, 1281. That is ONE YEAR, ONE MONTH ... not one month. That is two bloopers in one paragraph.
Page 43: 1st line in 1st full para. "... took place again in Santa Sabina."
Wrong! Two errors in one sentence. Previous one was not held in Santa Sabina, nor was this one. In reality NO papal election (or conclave) has ever been held in Santa Sabina. In this case, the election was held in the deceased pope's new palace, Corte Savella, which was NEAR Santa Sabina. Near ... doesn't mean 'in.' Not sure what the professor was thinking or doing.
Page 43: 2nd line, last para. "... appointed only one cardinal, Benedetto Caetani, ..."
Wrong! Another 'twofer' -- two errors in one sentence. The second 'twofer' on the page. Benedetto Caetani was created by Martin IV in April 1281. He took part in the election of Nicholas IV. Nicholas IV created six cardinals. Three lines later he talks about the two Colonna cardinals. Nicholas created one of them.
Page 60: 3rd line from bottom. "... the day after Urban's death."
Urban VI died October 15, 1389. His successor Boniface IX was installed November 2, 1389. If the conclave started October 16, per the author, this would have been a 18 day conclave. Most agree that it was not that long. Others, going by Dr. Francis A. Burkle-Young's "Passing the Keys," put the start date for this conclave at October 25 ... i.e., consistent with the ten day lead time mandated by Ubi periculum. That makes it a 8 day conclave. That makes more sense.
Page 71: Middle of page. "Ten days later, on April 4, 1454 ..."
April 4, 1455. This is a typo. My heart bleeds. I do this all the time. But, nonetheless, it is wrong.
Page 71: Middle of page. "... serve as the site for all but six conclaves to the present."
Talking as of '1454' which is mentioned at the start of this sentence. But from ALL that I can see, there have only been FIVE (5) conclaves outside of the Vatican as of 1454 -- not six, viz. 1799-1800 Venice and four at the Quirinal, 1823 to 1846. Note, that this is another TWOFER. There was no conclave in 1454. 1455.
Page 218: last sentence of the 2nd paragraph that starts: "They were an international group ..."
The claim that this consistory [i.e., December 15, 1958] created the first cardinals from Mexico, the Philippines and Japan is WRONG. The first from Japan and the Philippines came two consistories later in March 1960. Same is true for the first native African cardinal. So three of the four claims made in that sentence are wrong.
There are others. They can wait. I just don't have the time to document them all in one go. SORRY.
4. 'The Conclave' by Michael Walsh
ISBN: 1-58051-135-X, 2003
[As a fellow Brit, I have a soft spot for Mr. Walsh. There is something about his writing style. He appears to be more liberated than most in how he expresses things. I am in awe. I think I have most of his books. ]
Page 81: Just over 1/2 way down. "... they were deliberating for seventy days."
Make that 64.
A few more like this. I really should document them all. It is just a question of time. SORRY.
5. 'Heirs of the Fisherman' by John-Peter Pham
ISBN: 0-19-530561-2, 2004
Page 4: "... John Paul II named 233 cardinals ..."
This one I will confess really has to do with semantic along the lines of Bill Clinton's infamous parsing of what is meant by the word 'is' in different tenses. John Paul II CREATED 231 cardinals plus one in pectore. But the in pectore, by definition, was named and as thus cannot be included in the tally.
John Paul identified two prelates who died before they could attend the the consistories that would create them. So that is two more ... which would give us Dr. Pham's 233. But, here is the twist. One, Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, died two days before the June 28, 1988 consistory that would have created him a cardinal deacon. That he was to be created a cardinal on that day had been announced a month earlier on May 29, 1988. So you can certainly count him as having been named ... though not created. The other to die was Archbishop Josip Uhac on January 18, 1998. He was to be created a cardinal at the February 21, 1998 consistory. But he died a few hours BEFORE the convocation of the consistory was announced. So in reality his name was not included in the announcement. So does that count as being named? That is why I how you treat this one depends so much on interpretation. Strictly speaking it probably should be 232. Dr. Pham should have stuck with cardinals created. That would have avoided this confusion.
Page 89: 3rd full paragraph. "... ritual formula "Extra omnes!" ("All out!")."
This sentence says "After the conclusion of the final hortatory discourse ...". This is, alack, wrong. Extra omnes is called out PRIOR to the final hortatory discourse. So there is a big difference. You can confirm that this is indeed in error, right within the book because Dr. Pham includes in his Appendix 2 the entire Universi Dominici Gregis Apostolic Constitution that stipulates all the norms for contemporary conclaves. So check page 211, paragraph 5. You will see Extra omnes. Then read on. You will see that the hortatory discourse takes place after Extra omnes has been called out.
6. 'Oxford Dictionary of Popes' by J. N. D. Kelly
ISBN: 0-19-861433-0, 2005 [paperback]
< Can I please say that this is my 'bible' when it comes to popes. Always my first reference and invariably the source that I will 'trust.' This is not really so much 'an error' but an omission to update. >
Page 31: Felix II, ST (antipope 355-22 Nov. 365)
Antipope Felix II had confused with another Felix, a martyr, and as such been treated as a martyred saint. By the 1920s this mistake was well known and was getting rectified. J. N. D. Kelly, in fact, talks about the mistaken identity within the entry.
By 1960 Felix II was no longer deemed a saint. This Dictionary was first published in 1986. So Felix II should not have had 'ST' in 1986 ... and certainly not a 2005 edition.
That is all for now. This not something I plan to do on a regular basis. It will be ad hoc. as time and mood permits.
All the best.
Anura
Grace, and peace be with you.
Comments