Choosing a Pope from outside of the Papal conclave

[Inego_de_Loyola]

All cardinal deacons are bishops.

This is true, but it hasn’t always been. Once upon a time a cardinal deacon was both a cardinal and a deacon.

 

[SKWill]

All cardinal deacons are bishops.

Not always - as I cited earlier, Cardinal Dulles was dispensed from ordination as a bishop at his request after being named Cardinal-Deacon of SS. Nome di Gesù e Maria in Via Lata. It appears that Josef Cardinal Becker, another noted Jesuit theologian is a non–bishop serving as a Cardinal Deacon.

 

[Digitonomy]

It appears that Josef Cardinal Becker, another noted Jesuit theologian is a non–bishop serving as a Cardinal Deacon.

Fascinating. I stand corrected.

 

[duneman]

I’ve read that it’s possible but unlikely a non-cardinal or non-bishop can be chosen to be the Pope. If this unlikely thing were to happen how would the cardinals who are locked up behind the doors of the conclave communicate to him to ask if he accepts the offer when he isn’t in the conclave or might not even be in the same country?

By the way, if this unlikely thing were to happen I would be happy to see Fr. Mitch Pacwa chosen.

an excellent idea , change is good !!!

Shoes of the Fisherman

 

[TheDoctor]

Hi. Let me see if I can break down my reasoning.

This doesn’t make sense to me. It is “common wisdom” that any baptized male can be elected Pope…and it is what I have believed for most of my years a Catholic…but now I’m not so sure. Does anyone have a definitive clarification from a Church authority?

Our parish sent us this website to use in teaching our PREP kids about the conclave: vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/come-si-elegge-il-papa/ If you run it you will see it lays out the minimum for a person to be elected (male, Catholic, unmarried, baptized). I don’t know of any official church teaching on that but then again I don’t know of any official church teaching that says anything different.

The Church has the power of binding and loosing, and the canons that She has bound are binding on all Catholics - including the cardinals and the man elected to the papacy (prior to his acceptance).

Agreed

If the cardinals do not have the authority to ignore the canons, and if the theoretical layman they elect is not yet pope and also does not have the authority to ignore the canons, then how could the election be legitimate if the canons clearly state certain requirements for the episcopate?

The canons only state what a layman needs to do to be a Bishop (i.e. first a deacon, then a priest, then an Bishop). The canons do not say you must be a Bishop to be elected Pope. The latter can precede the former. If you keep looking through that link, you will note that if the person elected is not a Bishop he will be immediately made a Bishop. Note by the way that this does not appear in Canon Law.

The Pope is a bishop…sometimes Catholics forget that while he does hold the primacy he isn’t ordained to some mythical fourth degree of holy orders. He is a bishop.

Here is where timing is everything. Yes, the Pope is a Bishop, but if he is not a Bishop he is made one after he accepts, not before. And once he accepts, he *is *Pope and canon law, including the canons on who can be a bishop, do not apply to him.

Let’s take the example of a priest who is elected. He is a priest until he accepts. At that point he is the Pope and will be ordained a Bishop, ok? But what if he is only 30 years old? Canon 378.1.3 states a Bishop must be 35 years old. Do we not make the new Pope a bishop for 5 more years? Of course not, he is immediatley made a bishop because he is no longer a priest, he is Pope and the canons don’t apply to the Pope.

In a similar way, if a layman who accepts, he is a layman until he accepts and then he is the Pope and will be ordained a Bishop because the canons no longer apply to him.

 

[malphono]

Here is where timing is everything. Yes, the Pope is a Bishop, but if he is not a Bishop he is made one after he accepts, not before. And once he accepts, he *is *Pope and canon law, including the canons on who can be a bishop, do not apply to him.

Let’s take the example of a priest who is elected. He is a priest until he accepts. At that point he is the Pope and will be ordained a Bishop, ok? But what if he is only 30 years old? Canon 378.1.3 states a Bishop must be 35 years old. Do we not make the new Pope a bishop for 5 more years? Of course not, he is immediatley made a bishop because he is no longer a priest, he is Pope and the canons don’t apply to the Pope.

In a similar way, if a layman who accepts, he is a layman until he accepts and then he is the Pope and will be ordained a Bishop because the canons no longer apply to him.

Yes, but I think something is missing. The first and foremost title is Bishop of Rome. Everything else, including “Pope,” is secondary. IOW, a person cannot be Pope in the Catholic Church unless he is Bishop of Rome.

In the case of a non-bishop being elected, (and, of course, accepting the election), until such time as he is ordained a bishop, he cannot be “above the law” so-to-speak, and the canons still bind him. Admittedly, the arbitrary age of 35 would be dispensed de-facto, but until he becomes Bishop of Rome he has no authority. The authority of the office derives from that of Bishop of Rome.

 

[twf]

Yes, but I think something is missing. The first and foremost title is Bishop of Rome. Everything else, including “Pope,” is secondary. IOW, a person cannot be Pope in the Catholic Church unless he is Bishop of Rome.

In the case of a non-bishop being elected, (and, of course, accepting the election), until such time as he is ordained a bishop, he cannot be “above the law” so-to-speak, and the canons still bind him. Admittedly, the arbitrary age of 35 would be dispensed de-facto, but until he becomes Bishop of Rome he has no authority. The authority of the office derives from that of Bishop of Rome.

I totally agree with Malphono. I am willing to be corrected, but even if various parish literatures and common wisdom suggests otherwise, I just don’t see how a layman can be Pope upon acceptance…he would not be Pope until he is consecrated a bishop…and the canons bar all but men who meet a certain criteria from the episcopate. When a bishop is elected to the papacy, as has always been the case for the past thousand years or so, he immediately becomes Pope of Rome upon his acceptance because he is already a bishop…but if a layman, or even a priest, were elected, I can’t see any possible theological justification for suggesting that acceptance alone would somehow make him the Pope. How would that work? A lay pope? It makes no sense whatseover… it suggests that the papacy is a totally separate animal from the episcopate…some separate manner of office unknown to the Fathers and Sacred Tradition. As Malphono says, every power of the papacy hinges on him being Bishop of the Church in Rome, the Church which presides in charity (St. Iranaeus)…

 

[Digitonomy]

but if a layman, or even a priest, were elected, I can’t see any possible theological justification for suggesting that acceptance alone would somehow make him the Pope.

Correct, one must be ordained a bishop in order to become pope.

Universi Dominici Gregis 88. After his acceptance, the person elected, if he has already received episcopal ordination, is immediately Bishop of the Church of Rome, true Pope and Head of the College of Bishops. He thus acquires and can exercise full and supreme power over the universal Church.

If the person elected is not already a Bishop, he shall immediately be ordained Bishop.

However, ordination or consecration as a bishop is still valid even if it occurs contrary to canon law. So it would fall to those present to determine whether it is the will of the Church that every letter of canon law must be followed precisely, in spite of the elected’s endorsement by the College of Cardinals; or if instead it is the will of the Church that the one elected pope by the College of Cardinals become pope, despite a technicality or two.

 

[twf]

Correct, one must be ordained a bishop in order to become pope.However, ordination or consecration as a bishop is still valid even if it occurs contrary to canon law. So it would fall to those present to determine whether it is the will of the Church that every letter of canon law must be followed precisely, in spite of the elected’s endorsement by the College of Cardinals; or if instead it is the will of the Church that the one elected pope by the College of Cardinals become pope, despite a technicality or two.

I think such a scenario would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election and could lead to schism or various papal pretenders…as has happened previously in Church history. I personally don’t see how a man who doesn’t meet the canonical requirements for the episcopate could be licitly elected Bishop of Rome…so I don’t see how the election of a layman who doesn’t meet the criteria could be valid…as the cardinals, as well as the elected layman, are bound by canon law. If a layman who doesn’t meet the criteria for the episcopate were elected, and subsequently accepted the election and was consecrated a bishop, I would argue that he would be a valid bishop, but not the true Bishop of Rome and thus would not exercise the Petrine primacy. His orders would be valid, but he would have no jurisdiction. The papal primacy is a matter of jurisdiction as the lawful bishop of Rome - not simply being a validly consecrated bishop. As a layman, he could not automatically ascend to the papal throne by his mere acceptance (as episcopal consecration is an absolutely essential component of being the Bishop of Rome…), and thus both he and the cardinals who elected him would be in definance of the canons, thus calling the entire election into question. What am I missing?

 

[Kielbasi]

Benedict IX was the last layman elected to the papacy back in the 11th century and served an unprecedented 3 terms as pope.

I don’t think the fact that he was a layman really hurt him at all with the cardinals or the people of Rome, or they wouldn’t have elected him a 2nd or 3rd time.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Benedict IX was the last layman elected to the papacy back in the 11th century and served an unprecedented 3 terms as pope.

I don’t think the fact that he was a layman really hurt him at all with the cardinals or the people of Rome, or they wouldn’t have elected him a 2nd or 3rd time.

Why wasn’t he Pope for life as is now the case, or until resignation?

 

[Kielbasi]

Why wasn’t he Pope for life as is now the case, or until resignation?

Benedict IX was elected for life as well, but resigned thrice.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Benedict IX was elected for life as well, but resigned thrice.

No he only resigned once. The first time he left office he was forced out by military force, and was replaced by antipope Sylvester III, afterwards Benedict returned with his own army and reclaimed his seat. By reason of Benedict’s scandals his godfather bribed him to resign the papacy and Benedict accepted. His simonious godfather succeeded him as Pope Gregory VI. Later Benedict decided he wanted to be Pope again so he retook Rome by military force. Throughout all this Sylvester maintained his claim. The Holy Roman Emperor Henry III intervened and declared Sylvester and Benedict deposed, but requested Gregory’s resignation due to the simony by which he obtained the Papacy. He did so and was succeeded by Clement II. So there were a few periods where Benedict was the rightful Pope in exile and one where he was an antipope.

 

[JamesCaruso]

No he only resigned once. The first time he left office he was forced out by military force, and was replaced by antipope Sylvester III, afterwards Benedict returned with his own army and reclaimed his seat. By reason of Benedict’s scandals his godfather bribed him to resign the papacy and Benedict accepted. His simonious godfather succeeded him as Pope Gregory VI. Later Benedict decided he wanted to be Pope again so he retook Rome by military force. Throughout all this Sylvester maintained his claim. The Holy Roman Emperor Henry III intervened and declared Sylvester and Benedict deposed, but requested Gregory’s resignation due to the simony by which he obtained the Papacy. He did so and was succeeded by Clement II. So there were a few periods where Benedict was the rightful Pope in exile and one where he was an antipope.

I’m not sure I want to know any more. lol

 

[livingwordunity]

Benedict IX was the last layman elected to the papacy back in the 11th century and served an unprecedented 3 terms as pope.

I don’t think the fact that he was a layman really hurt him at all with the cardinals or the people of Rome, or they wouldn’t have elected him a 2nd or 3rd time.

The is what the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says about Benedict IX:

The nephew of his two immediate predecessors, Benedict IX was a man of very different character to either of them. He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter. Regarding it as a sort of heirloom, his father Alberic placed him upon it when a mere youth, not, however, apparently of only twelve years of age (according to Raoul Glaber, Hist., IV, 5, n. 17. Cf. V, 5, n. 26), but of about twenty (October, 1032). Of his pontifical acts little is known, except that he held two or three synods in Rome and granted a number of privileges to various churches and monasteries. He insisted that Bretislav, Duke of Bohemia, should found a monastery, for having carried off the body of St. Adalbert from Poland. In 1037 he went north to meet the Emperor Conrad and excommunicated Heribert, Archbishop of Milan, who was at emnity with him (Ann. Hildesheimenses, 1038). Taking advantage of the dissolute life he was leading, one of the factions in the city drove him from it (1044) amid the greatest disorder, and elected an antipope (Sylvester III) in the person of John, Bishop of Sabina (1045 -Ann. Romani, init. Victor, Dialogi, III, init.). Benedict, however, succeeded in expelling Sylvester the same year; but, as some say, that he might marry, he resigned his office into the hands of the Archpriest John Gratian for a large sum. John was then elected pope and became Gregory VI (May, 1045). Repenting of his bargain, Benedict endeavoured to depose Gregory. This resulted in the intervention of King Henry III. Benedict, Sylvester, and Gregory were deposed at the Council of Sutri (1046) and a German bishop (Suidger) became Pope Clement II. After his speedy demise, Benedict again seized Rome (November, 1047), but was driven from it to make way for a second German pope, Damasus II (November, 1048). Of the end of Benedict it is impossible to speak with certainty. Some authors suppose him to have been still alive when St. Leo IX died, and never to have ceased endeavouring to seize the papacy. But it is more probable that the truth lies with the tradition of the Abbey of Grottaferrata, first set down by Abbot Luke, who died about 1085, and corroborated by sepulchral and other monuments within its walls. Writing of Bartholomew, its fourth abbot (1065), Luke tells of the youthful pontiff turning from his sin and coming to Bartholomew for a remedy for his disorders. On the saint’s advice, Benedict definitely resigned the pontificate and died in penitence at Grottaferrata. [See “St. Benedict and Grottaferrata” (Rome, 1895), a work founded on the more important “De Sepulcro Benedicti IX”, by Dom Greg. Piacentini (Rome, 1747).]

 

[Hotgoldensun]

Fr. Mitch Pacwa of EWTN knows 12 languages, has been evangelizing the world on EWTN for over 20 years, is a world-class biblical scholar and theologian, knows how to celebrate Mass in the Eastern as well as Western liturgies, knows the holy land and its culture like the back of his hand because of his regular pilgrimages there, and his orthodoxy is rock-solid.

Father Mitch Pacwa is a very good man .

 

[malphono]

I think such a scenario would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election and could lead to schism or various papal pretenders…as has happened previously in Church history. I personally don’t see how a man who doesn’t meet the canonical requirements for the episcopate could be licitly elected Bishop of Rome…so I don’t see how the election of a layman who doesn’t meet the criteria could be valid…as the cardinals, as well as the elected layman, are bound by canon law. If a layman who doesn’t meet the criteria for the episcopate were elected, and subsequently accepted the election and was consecrated a bishop, I would argue that he would be a valid bishop, but not the true Bishop of Rome and thus would not exercise the Petrine primacy. His orders would be valid, but he would have no jurisdiction. The papal primacy is a matter of jurisdiction as the lawful bishop of Rome - not simply being a validly consecrated bishop. As a layman, he could not automatically ascend to the papal throne by his mere acceptance (as episcopal consecration is an absolutely essential component of being the Bishop of Rome…), and thus both he and the cardinals who elected him would be in definance of the canons, thus calling the entire election into question. What am I missing?

What seems to be missing here is the action of the Conclave. Remember that at the beginning of Conclave the Veni Creator is sung, and I think that says it all.

If the electors were to select a layman, it would be through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost which is not, as we know, bound by man-made Canon Law. Assuming that he accepted the election, the person elected would, of course, have to be ordained deacon, priest, and bishop, in order, but once he was ordained bishop, he would indeed be the lawful Bishop of Rome.

 

[Megan7]

His birth date is only known approximately, said to be about 1012 A.D. which would have made him begin at age twenty as Pope.

John XII also has an uncertain date, said to be about 937 A.D.

You can read something on each of the Popes from St. Pius X and prior here:

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

 

[JamesCaruso]

…

If the electors were to select a layman, it would be through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost which is not, as we know, bound by man-made Canon Law…

Why do you assume the Cardinals would follow the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is their choice, not His, because that’s the way He set it up. He promised to be with the Church until the end of time, to protect it from error in doctrine/teaching, but part of the deal was to accept whoever they chose to be Pope. It’s not a forced decision. We’ve had some real doozies, not recently, thank God-- were they selected by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

 

[FatherOfTwelve]

CIC Can. 332 states for the one elected to be Pope: “If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.”

But to be a bishop:

CIC Can. 378 §1 To be a suitable candidate for the episcopate, a person must:
1° be outstanding in strong faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence and human virtues, and possess those other gifts which equip him to fulfill the office in question;
2° be held in good esteem;
3° be at least 35 years old;
4° be a priest ordained for at least five years;
5° hold a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred Scripture, theology or canon law, from an institute of higher studies approved by the Apostolic See, or at least be well versed in these disciplines.
§2 The definitive judgement on the suitability of the person to be promoted rests with the Apostolic See.

In practice the new Pope has been a bishop or cardinal. The last non-cardinal elected pope was Urban VI in 1379 A.D… From 1059 A.D. In Nomine Domini required that the new pontiff be selected from the Roman clergy, or if no suitable candidate can be found, the candidate can be chosen from another church.

The 2/3 majority is needed, except for an impasse, simple majority.

1st Timothy Chapter 3
1 The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; 5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil; * 7 moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. *