Talk:Papal conclave

Ambiguity?
Is the following in the article ambiguous in meaning as to which is the most recent?

> As of 2017, the three most recent conclaves have elected a Pole, a German, and an Argentinian.

Would it be better if the nationalities each had a date after them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.208.162 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure. Done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.208.162 (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

cum clave
"the cardinal electors should be locked in seclusion cum clave (Latin for "with a key")"

If this is intended to explain the etymology of the word, then:

1) I do not know if anyone notices, but the word is "CONclave" and not "CUMclave". So what the latter has to do with the former, please?

2) "cum"+"clave" does indeed literally mean "with"+"a key"; the problem is that Latin is an inflected language, so its instrumentals do not require to be marked with a preposition. And so "(to lock) with a key" is "(claudere) clave", without one. Exactly as in "qui gladio ferit, gladio perit" (who lives by the sword, dies by the sword), and not "qui cum gladio ferit" etc.

3) On the contrary "to lock someone cum clave" (claudere aliquem cum clave) does not really mean "to lock someone with a key", but "to lock someone together with a key", which is absurd.

4) The reality is that "conclave" is a common Latin noun which means "a (locked) room" (viz. where the cardinals are sitting in the process of the creation of a new pope). To be checked in ANY relevant dictionary, not necessary an ecclesiastic one.
 * @4: Or in Wiktionary (I don't undertake to decide if it's a relevant dictionary or not). @2/3: There is some chance that the usage was looser (i.e. more influenced by Romance vernaculars) before the Renaissance. 89.64.69.36 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * "cum clave" is a folk etymology. -178.73.63.242 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Ronald Edward
When am I clear to go paint 47.42.29.229 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Oath speeding up the election?
This bit had me scratching my head:

"Gregory XV added the additional oath, taken when each cardinal casts his ballot, to prevent cardinals wasting time in casting "courtesy votes" and instead narrowing the number of realistic candidates for the papal throne to perhaps only two or three. Speed in electing a pope was important, and that meant using an oath so as to get the cardinals down to the serious business of electing a new pope and narrowing the number of potentially electable candidates."

How, exactly, does the additional oath do these things? How does it speed things up and narrow down the number of candidates? Snowgrouse (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)