Talk:Cadaver Synod
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Cadaver Synod is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
Not being an expert on the finer matters of ecclesiastical law, I wonder if the article could state more clearly who exactly found Formosus guilty. My initial assumption would have been the pope, but since the sitting pope seems to have been acting as prosecutor here, I have the impression that some other person or group acted as judge/jury. --Michael Snow 28 June 2005 16:31 (UTC)
- Good point. I know that there was a panel of priests, who served together with Stephen. I don't know how many there were, though. That would be valuable to learn. this site confirms what I recall about the panel, but doesn't say how many were on it. Mkmcconn (Talk) 28 June 2005 18:00 (UTC)
Was this case ever cited as a precedent? Rintrah 00:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The article states that Formosus' body was tossed in the river where it spent the next little while performing miracles up and down the Tiber. It was then return to St Peter's years later. Is there an explanation for how this body could stay intact for so long? Did someone fetch it from the river and keep it in their wine cellar? Are the different tales involving his body from different sources? Other than that, it's an interesting article.
I would suggest looking at the book Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid. I think it has a chapter that gives greater details of the incident.
Contents |
[edit] Removed text, which may be reincorporated later
I am going to remove the following paragraph, which is unsourced and the conclusions of which I find questionable, from the article:
"An ironic but probably deliberate result of the Cadaver Synod was that it freed Stephen from the same charge of which Formosus had been found guilty. Stephen had similarly become bishop of Rome while serving as the head of a different diocese, since he was still bishop of Anagni. However, since Formosus had consecrated Stephen as a bishop, the annulment of Formosus's acts negated Stephen's consecration and made him legally eligible for the papacy."
Perhaps portions of it can be reincorporated later.
ECKnibbs 21:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I am also removing the reference to Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy; we already have one "In Literature" section, and at any rate this book is not an ideal source for information about the Cadaver Synod. ECKnibbs 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Improvements to article
I am in the process of improving this article, which contains a surprising number of errors and misstatements, as well as a lot of outtdated opinions (all of them without citations). I hope to add:
1. Information on the historical sources for our narrative of the Cadaver Synod, including Auxilius and Vulgarius, two tenth-century authors who give us most of the details.
2. Information on the 898 Council of Ravenna (which probably deserves its own article), which revoked the decrees of the Synod
3. Information on the origins of the accusations against Formosus. As it stands the article's account of the accusations is incomplete.
4. More information on the historical context. I've already done some of this, but the article needs more about the earlier relationship between John VIII and Formosus in the 870s to give readers the full picture. ECKnibbs 21:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed several sources
I have removed references in the article to two sources--one, to a magazine piece by someone named Wilkes, which is rather sensationalistic, full of apocryphal information, and generally not a good source for the synod. I have also removed references to a book by Tobin. I am not familiar with this book, but it seems to propagate a few misunderstandings, which I'll elaborate on if there are any objections.
ECKnibbs 11:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Style stuff:
The "Notes" section should be called "Footnotes" and be above the References section. "Further reading" should be "References" - they are not counted as "references" to the article per say, but as referencial texts of further reading. Overall, References is the more common subheading title and the more preferred title. I've completed these changes. Cheers, Spawn Man 07:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
