History of Papal election

[Elizium23]

Someone recently posed a question to me that is beyond my powers of research, and I am sorry if this came up two months ago with the recent election, but this has more to do with the history of things.

When a Pope is elected, he must be a bishop to enjoy the rights of the office. Current law says that he is to be consecrated immediately after his acceptance of the election. Until he is ordained a bishop, it is understood that he is not the Bishop of Rome and ergo, not yet a valid pope.

Has it always been this way?

I thought that since the office of Pope is the Bishop of Rome that legislation would not affect it, but someone has told me that pre-1983 Code, pre-UDG law was to the contrary. He quotes Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, “101. Hoc consensu praestito intra terminum, quatenus opus sit, prudenti arbitrio Cardinalium per maiorem votorum numerum determinandum, illico electus est verus Papa, atque actu plenam absolutamque iurisdictionem supra totum orbem acquirit et exercere potest.” Now, my Latin is not good enough to delve into the history of Church law, especially that which may lie outside the well-defined Codes of Canon Law in recent history.

So is this quote out of context, or is he correct in saying that before 1975, a theoretical layperson or priest who was elected Pope would be in actuality a valid Pope with all the rights and responsibilities and powers without the benefit of episcopal consecration?

References and links would be appreciated for our assurance.

 

[dans0622]

Hello,

What you were told is correct. Paul VI, in 1975’s Romano pontifici eligendo, no. 88, changed the prior law. The prior law was present in several places, such as the document you mention as well as the 1917 Code, c. 219, which did not make any mention of the need for episcopal consecration/ordination. In fact, that canon said that it is *by divine law *that the man receives the authority of the office upon his acceptance of election. The new law, as in c. 332.1 of the 1983 Code, does not make any reference to divine law. So, I think one could still legitimately say that if a non-bishop was elected Pope and accepted the election, he could validly exercise all the power of that office even before ordination. Such has happened in the past, that is for sure–deacons elected Pope and exercising their office before ordination/consecration. That brings up a point–I don’t know of any layman ever being elected Pope and acting as Pope without any ordination. As far as I know, in order to exercise any office which carries jurisdiction, a man has always had to be a cleric (of some level).

I think that, in the past, the office of Roman Pontiff was seen as somehow distinct from that of Bishop of Rome. These days, they are seen as more united.

Links: Paul VI’s apostolic constitution: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6ROMPON.HTM

This is not, strictly speaking, a translation of the 1917 Code but it’s close enough:

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/canonlaw/commentary%20.pdf

go to the bottom of page 24.

Dan

 

[YoungTradCath]

So I suppose we might be able to say that a non-bishop elected Pope is eligible to exercise all rights and privileges of the Papacy even before episcopal consecration/ordination, but that, until the moment of consecration, he could not exercise pontifical (as in episcopal) powers?

So say Fr. Smith is elected Pope and takes for himself the name Gregory. He could appoint Cardinal Jimbob as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (for example), but he could not ordain a man to the priesthood until Gregory is, himself, ordained to the episcopacy.

Is that right?

Even if it is right, oh boy, that creates all kinds of difficulties/possibilities not foreseen by Jesus…

 

[Elizium23]

The Pope of Rome and the Popes of the Oriental Orthodox Church: An Essay on Monarchy in the Church, with Special Reference to Russia, from Original Documents, Russian and Greek

Finally, even a layman, if elected Pope, is immediately, on his acceptance of the dignity, invested with the power of full jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church, and enters at once upon the exercise of it, without needing for it the episcopal consecration, which is only subsequently conferred.

This is of course only concerning pre-1975 law. I know that the modern law is different. But this is a very interesting assertion. I was told by FrDavid96 and by JREducation that the 1917 Canon Law implicitly denies this, and yet here is a secondary source commenting on the law that says the opposite.

 

[FrDavid96]

This is of course only concerning pre-1975 law. I know that the modern law is different. But this is a very interesting assertion. I was told by FrDavid96 and by JREducation that the 1917 Canon Law implicitly denies this, and yet here is a secondary source commenting on the law that says the opposite.

That’s not what either of us said.

We both pointed out to you that the word “pontiff” means bishop in response to your post that said the canon does not refer to a bishop.

Elizium23:

Can. 219. Romanus Pontifex, legitime electus, statim ab acceptata electione, obtinet, iure divino, plenam supremae iurisdictionis potestatem.
This canon does not mention anything about the episcopal character.

Your post hardly proves your point—the only thing it proves is that you do not know the definitions of the words you are using.

You are missing the entire point of the topic.

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome–along with everything that entails.

Perhaps the point is too obvious and that’s why you aren’t seeing it?

One cannot be a bishop without actually being a bishop.

One cannot be the Romanus Pontifex unless he is a pontifex.

The point behind St Pius X’s 1904 legislation declaring that the one elected is true Pope immediately upon his acceptance has NOTHING to do with whether or not he is already a bishop.

In the 1903 Conclave (after the death of Leo XIII), a cardinal was elected pope by the college. However, the Cardinal from Krakow imposed a veto on behalf of Emperor Franz Josef of Austria–thus nullifying the election. Because of this, the cardinals had to vote again, and they chose Card. Sarto (who took the name Pius X).

As a direct response to that election (yes, his own) Pius X changed the rules of the Conclave so that no one could ever veto or otherwise impede the duly elected pope.

The law was NOT about making the point that a pope need not be a bishop to assume office. The point of that particular sentence was to abolish the power of veto by a secular power.

Pius X makes it clear in the next paragraph that if the one elected is not yet a bishop, he is to be ordained a bishop (he used the word “consecrated”) by the Cardinal Dean; he thus satisfies the issue of a non-bishop being elected.

Admittedly, he does not make the provision that the one elected must first be ordained and then becomes true pope. John Paul II later addressed this when he revised the law in 1996, to clarify the point that Pius X simply never directly addressed.

 

[Elizium23]

But JREducation says that only a bishop has jurisdiction, and the quote I just provided says this is not true at all: a layman, or a priest, would have had supreme jurisdiction before his episcopal consecration.

Sure, I agree with your points. To be Bishop of Rome, one must be consecrated a bishop. To assume the office this is necessary. But to acquire jurisdiction that was not necessary.

I am trying to understand your example about the veto by the Emperor. The Cardinal from Krakow was not the one elected. Therefore he did not have supreme jurisdiction as Pope, and this outside interference was of a completely different character than the issue at hand. It is a red herring.

The issue is papal jurisdiction without the benefit of episcopal consecration. Perhaps you will need to assail the reliability of the book I quoted, but I was also given another quote from Encyclopedia Britannica along the same lines. (It is more vague, and not visible in the preview which Google Books gives me, which is why I relied upon the other book in my previous post.)

 

[Elizium23]

Father, I think we are agreeing here, even if it seems not. I never meant to ask whether a theoretical layman Pope could get away without ever being ordained a bishop. I was only asking whether he gained supreme and immediate jurisdiction before that time. It seems that this was true, between 1904 and 1975. Possibly even after 1975 to the present day, if I am reading you right. Nothing can impede a validly elected Pope, and that is why he is granted his jurisdiction immediately upon acceptance of his election. Is that the correct conclusion?

 

[FrDavid96]

But JREducation says that only a bishop has jurisdiction, and the quote I just provided says this is not true at all: a layman, or a priest, would have had supreme jurisdiction before his episcopal consecration.

Sure, I agree with your points. To be Bishop of Rome, one must be consecrated a bishop. To assume the office this is necessary. But to acquire jurisdiction that was not necessary.

I am trying to understand your example about the veto by the Emperor. The Cardinal from Krakow was not the one elected. Therefore he did not have supreme jurisdiction as Pope, and this outside interference was of a completely different character than the issue at hand. It is a red herring.

The issue is papal jurisdiction without the benefit of episcopal consecration. Perhaps you will need to assail the reliability of the book I quoted, but I was also given another quote from Encyclopedia Britannica along the same lines. (It is more vague, and not visible in the preview which Google Books gives me, which is why I relied upon the other book in my previous post.)

No. Your quote does not prove what you keep trying to say it does.

The purpose of the sentence you keep quoting was to prohibit a veto of a papal election.

You are trying to take that sentence and force it to mean that a pope need not be a bishop. What you are saying is complete nonsense, but you cannot see it because you’re blinded by your own stubbornness.

You cannot separate jurisdiction from office in the way that you are trying to force the issue in your posts. It’s pure nonsense.

As far as the book you quoted “The Pope of Rome and…”
Yes, I’ve read the text.
It doesn’t change anything.

 

[FrDavid96]

Father, I think we are agreeing here, even if it seems not. I never meant to ask whether a theoretical layman Pope could get away without ever being ordained a bishop. I was only asking whether he gained supreme and immediate jurisdiction before that time. It seems that this was true, between 1904 and 1975. Possibly even after 1975 to the present day, if I am reading you right. Nothing can impede a validly elected Pope, and that is why he is granted his jurisdiction immediately upon acceptance of his election. Is that the correct conclusion?

No. You are not reading it right; not anywhere near it.

Once again, you are forcing a meaning into the text which is not there.

No one can be the “Bishop of Rome” without first being a bishop.

The purpose of the sentence that you keep quoting was to nullify a veto. It was NOT to say that a layman becomes pope even though he is not a bishop.

The sentence granting him jurisdiction takes for granted that he is already a bishop. Pius X addresses the issue of a non-bishop in the FOLLOWING sentence, not the one you keep quoting.

I truly don’t understand how many times I have to keep explaining to you that you are forcing a meaning into the text which was never intended before you will see that plain fact.

 

[dans0622]

I will modify what I said earlier on this topic and say that it is not that there was a distinction between the office of Pope and that of bishop of Rome and say, instead, that there was a different understanding as to the connection between power of order and power of jurisdiction. Since history has numerous examples of men who were not bishops being elected Pope and exercising their power of papal jurisdiction before ordination/consecration, obviously past generations had a different way of addressing this question. Pope Hadrian V is a prime example. He was “only” a deacon for the entirety of his pontificate (only about 5 weeks) yet he is known to have exercised his papal authority.

Dan

 

[Bergon]

If a layman was elected the Pope I could see him being able to exercise some of the papal authority. He might choose someone to be a cardinal. He could make a particular cardinal the head of a dicastery.

I suspect that he couldn’t do those things that only a bishop can do: ordain, confirm, etc.

But, here’s my question, doesn’t someone have to be a cleric to exercise any jurisdiction in the Church? So, if I was elected Pope (I’m preparing the list of things I’d do) as a layman I’d have no jurisdiction until I got ordained. Or, is that a modern concept that’s not always applied?

 

[FrDavid96]

If a layman was elected the Pope I could see him being able to exercise some of the papal authority. He might choose someone to be a cardinal. He could make a particular cardinal the head of a dicastery.

I suspect that he couldn’t do those things that only a bishop can do: ordain, confirm, etc.

But, here’s my question, doesn’t someone have to be a cleric to exercise any jurisdiction in the Church? So, if I was elected Pope (I’m preparing the list of things I’d do) as a layman I’d have no jurisdiction until I got ordained. Or, is that a modern concept that’s not always applied?

He cannot “do” anything as pope because he is not the pope until he is a bishop.
The pope is a bishop, first and foremost, therefore until one is a bishop he is not yet the pope.
That’s why conclave legislation requires that if the one elected lacks the episcopal character, he must be ordained a bishop immediately.

The idea that the one elected would say “I accept. But wait. Before you ordain me a bishop, I hereby name Cardinal so-and-so Prefect of the Congregation for Whatever” is just absurd. It’s ridiculous.

This whole thread and the entire topic is a non-issue.

Why, oh why, do some people just refuse to understand the most basic fact that
in order to be a bishop, one must first be a bishop???

 

[Bergon]

He cannot “do” anything as pope because he is not the pope until he is a bishop.
The pope is a bishop, first and foremost, therefore until one is a bishop he is not yet the pope.
That’s why conclave legislation requires that if the one elected lacks the episcopal character, he must be ordained a bishop immediately.

The idea that the one elected would say “I accept. But wait. Before you ordain me a bishop, I hereby name Cardinal so-and-so Prefect of the Congregation for Whatever” is just absurd. It’s ridiculous.

This whole thread and the entire topic is a non-issue.

Why, oh why, do some people just refuse to understand the most basic fact that
in order to be a bishop, one must first be a bishop???

I know the modern rules. If a layman was elected as Pope there’d probably be no time for him to make any decisions prior to his ordination. If we’re being totally pragmatic let’s face it no layman’s going to be elcted as Pope so it’s nothing more than an interesting discussion. It’s not going to happen. But wasn’t the initial enquiry about much earlier times.

I agree with you the Pope is a bishop. But I’m not sure my original question is fully answered. Is jurisdiction in the Church exclusive to clerics? If it is then the argument ends. But if jurisdiction isn’t reserved to clerics then in the past when laymen were elected Pope and not immediately ordained why couldn’t they exercise any jurisdiction. My entire question revolved around the fact as to whether only clerics have any jurisdiction or whether laymen can have some. It wasn’t about what has to be done according to the current rules.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

I agree with you the Pope is a bishop. But I’m not sure my original question is fully answered. Is jurisdiction in the Church exclusive to clerics? If it is then the argument ends. But if jurisdiction isn’t reserved to clerics then in the past when laymen were elected Pope and not immediately ordained why couldn’t they exercise any jurisdiction. My entire question revolved around the fact as to whether only clerics have any jurisdiction or whether laymen can have some. It wasn’t about what has to be done according to the current rules.

No jurisdiction is not exclusive to clerics—for example, a diocese chancellor can be a layperson and have both (some) direct and vicarious jurisdiction.

What’s happening here is that in your post (here) you are confusing the issue of jurisdiction in a generic sense with the jurisdiction of the office of Supreme Pontiff.

I know I keep repeating this, but it just isn’t getting through:

The pope is a bishop. If you try to say “yes, I know that but…what if he isn’t a bishop?” It just isn’t making any sense.

This is not (again NOT) about “current rules” that somehow we can have one period of time when the pope need not be a bishop and another period when he must be. No. The very office of pope is the bishop of Rome; regardless of what time period. That does not, and indeed cannot change.

I think that last part is the very heart of the problem. The concept that the pope must be a bishop is NOT something that varies according to what the law happens to say at any given moment. From Peter onward, the pope is first and foremost the bishop of Rome.

We have some isolated examples from ancient history of laymen being elected pope, with a short intervening period between election and episcopal ordination. Yes, that’s true. These are isolated examples which do not reflect the theological reality that the offices of “Pope” and “Bishop of Rome” are one and the same. There is no such thing as a pope who is not also a bishop. How do we address the brief time periods (extremely brief) of a pope-elect exercising jurisdiction before his episcopal ordination? It’s simply a non-issue. It’s a historical quark and nothing more.

It was not until the Second Vatican council that the Church finally settled certain questions about the Episcopal ministry----finally after nearly 2000 years settling the issue that the bishop receives the fullness of ordination in contrast to being “merely” a priest with the power of jurisdiction.

In those isolated examples from ancient history of “non-bishop-popes” the theology had not yet developed enough for them to see the necessity of ordaining him immediately upon election. So, they waited a few days. So what? It is not important beyond making for some interesting trivia.

I’m not very keen to say this next part, but I feel as if I must do so just to satisfy the question that keeps coming up.

Look at it this way: a non-bishop-pope-elect did not actually become the pope until he was ordained a bishop, even though they called him “Pope.” Any decisions he made, any decrees he issued, were suspended and had no effect until he became a bishop. The moment he became a bishop, all of those decisions began to have force-of-law.
(As for Hadrian V, his decisions came into full effect when they were implicitly ratified by his successor).
I know this sounds a bit silly, but since the question is silly, it deserves a silly answer.

I don’t know if that will help, or not, but I’ve thrown it out there.

 

[Bergon]

… the question is silly, it deserves a silly answer.

The question is not silly. If someone doesn’t know something how is that silly? If you know the answer you don’t ask the question - that’s silly. Asking a question you don’t know the answer to isn’t silly even if the person who gives the answer knows the answer inside out and can’t understand why the questioner doesn’t know the answer.

 

[FrDavid96]

The question is not silly. If someone doesn’t know something how is that silly? If you know the answer you don’t ask the question - that’s silly. Asking a question you don’t know the answer to isn’t silly even if the person who gives the answer knows the answer inside out and can’t understand why the questioner doesn’t know the answer.

I meant that my scenario about the law being “suspended” until he becomes a bishop is a bit of a silly or overly-legalistic answer.

At this point, I’ve tried over and over again to explain that in
order to hold the office of bishop (in this case, bishop of Rome) the man must first be in-truth a bishop.

One cannot go any further in the conversation without understanding and accepting that most basic premise of the whole topic.

You are trying to find ways to “prove” that that is not the case. I assure you it is.

It doesn’t matter which time period, or what code of canon law was in effect at the time, or what conclave rules were in effect at the time. The pope is first and foremost a bishop. Not a bishop simply means not a pope.

Of course, we can have a conversation about the historical anomalies of the few times that we had a pope elected but there was a delay in episcopal ordination–by all means. But that conversation cannot go forward unless there’s an understanding that the office of pope is by its very nature and indispensably an episcopal office.

 

[Bergon]

You are trying to find ways to “prove” that that is not the case.

I’m not trying to prove anything. I was simply asking questions. I know that the Pope is first and foremost the Bishop of Rome. I’m aware, but only vaguely so, that in the past laymen have been elected to the Papacy. What I didn’t know was the length of time that expired between their election and their episcopal ordination. I was asking if they could exercise any authority prior to their episcopal ordination where what they did didn’t require the episcopal character. Let me emphasise I am and was asking. I’m not saying that they could exercise any such power. Let me give an example of what I meant. Let’s say back in his history a layman was elected Pope my question was based on whether he could have say commissioned a fresco to be painted in St Peter’s Basilica. A facile example but that’s all that’s coming off the top of my head. I must point out again I would have been asking that not saying it was so. I’m not asking now because of the things you’ve said. I understood from the outset that the Pope couldn’t have done anything requiring the episcopal character prior to episcopal ordination such as ordaining priests. I knew that, didn’t doubt it or question that.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m not trying to prove anything. I was simply asking questions. I know that the Pope is first and foremost the Bishop of Rome. I’m aware, but only vaguely so, that in the past laymen have been elected to the Papacy. What I didn’t know was the length of time that expired between their election and their episcopal ordination. I was asking if they could exercise any authority prior to their episcopal ordination where what they did didn’t require the episcopal character.

Actually, the answer to the question is “no.”
They did it anyway. Am I saying that they were in the wrong? No. (emphasis here, I am not saying they did anything wrong).
I’m just saying that “it happened.”

How or why did it happen that way? I submit that it was because the doctrine surrounding the bishop as receiving the fullness of Holy Orders had not yet developed. They saw the office of bishop as being “only” the office of governing or jurisdiction and therefore they were able to separate the functions of sanctifying (such as ordaining) and governing (such as commissioning a painting or naming a new cardinal). Although we must keep in mind also that this happened only for a very brief time (perhaps a few days), so that in the end it makes no practical difference.

Let me emphasise I am and was asking. I’m not saying that they could exercise any such power. Let me give an example of what I meant. Let’s say back in his history a layman was elected Pope my question was based on whether he could have say commissioned a fresco to be painted in St Peter’s Basilica. A facile example but that’s all that’s coming off the top of my head. I must point out again I would have been asking that not saying it was so. I’m not asking now because of the things you’ve said. I understood from the outset that the Pope couldn’t have done anything requiring the episcopal character prior to episcopal ordination such as ordaining priests. I knew that, didn’t doubt it or question that.

OK.

We need a little history here.

Until Vatican II, it was an open and oft-debated topic among theologians of whether the office of bishop was actually the fullness of ordination, or whether a bishop was a priest with the power of jurisdiction.

Even though it took nearly 2000 years, the council finally settled the question by declaring that the bishop receives the fullness of ordination and on the other hand that a priest does not receive the fullness of ordination while a bishop is a priest-with-jurisdiction.

Now, to put that another way, that means that the entire office of bishop requires episcopal ordination, not just the sacramental aspect, like ordaining a new priest. After Vatican II, we now understand that there is no separation between the “governing” and the “sanctifying” elements of the bishop’s ministry. They might sometimes be distinct, but they cannot be separated. To rephrase that again, no one can actually exercise the ministry of governing as a bishop without that episcopal ordination.

(Now, there are some times when governing occurs by one who is not a bishop–in that case, he is exercising his own proper office of governing, but not exercising the office of bishop as such. A diocesan administrator is such an example. He exercises his own temporary authority.)

 

[bsroufek]

Thank you Father (FrDavid96) for all your hard work and clarity on this, indeed your patience.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Now, to put that another way, that means that the entire office of bishop requires episcopal ordination, not just the sacramental aspect, like ordaining a new priest. After Vatican II, we now understand that there is no separation between the “governing” and the “sanctifying” elements of the bishop’s ministry. They might sometimes be distinct, but they cannot be separated. To rephrase that again, no one can actually exercise the ministry of governing as a bishop without that episcopal ordination.

(Now, there are some times when governing occurs by one who is not a bishop–in that case, he is exercising his own proper office of governing, but not exercising the office of bishop as such. A diocesan administrator is such an example. He exercises his own temporary authority.)

So in other words, the governing authority of a bishop is inherent to the man, while the governing authority of an office person in the diocese, the chancellor for example, is simply created, or delegated, authority.

Right?