How were Popes elected in the Anti-Nicene Period?

[Holly3278]

Hey everyone. How were Popes elected in the Anti-Nicene Period? In other words, in the early Church? Did the Pope choose his own successor or what?

 

[DaveBj]

Hey everyone. How were Popes elected in the Anti-Nicene Period? In other words, in the early Church? Did the Pope choose his own successor or what?

Linguistic quibble – “anti” means “against”; the word you need here is “ante,” which means “prior to.”

If you want details, I would suggest reading Phillip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, chapter IV, sections 50-52, available on-line here:

ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch04.htm

 

[Bergon]

Hey everyone. How were Popes elected in the Anti-Nicene Period? In other words, in the early Church? Did the Pope choose his own successor or what?

I think they were elected by the clergy of the Rome diocese. If I remember my Church history properly I think it was the tenth century before the cardinals became the regular electors.

 

[Zekariya]

Linguistic quibble – “anti” means “against”; the word you need here is “ante,” which means “prior to.”

If you want details, I would suggest reading Phillip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, chapter IV, sections 50-52, available on-line here:

ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch04.htm

Note that Philip Schaff is a Protestant and leans in that direction even in his footnotes to the Early Church Fathers.

 

[DaveBj]

Note that Philip Schaff is a Protestant and leans in that direction even in his footnotes to the Early Church Fathers.

Fully aware. Nevertheless, his HogCC is massively documented and detailed.

(I’ve just gotten into Volume 7, which tells the story of the “Reformation,” and if you think his footnotes to the Early Church Fathers were biased . . . )

 

[Zekariya]

Fully aware. Nevertheless, his HogCC is massively documented and detailed.

(I’ve just gotten into Volume 7, which tells the story of the “Reformation,” and if you think his footnotes to the Early Church Fathers were biased . . . )

He he. I hear that. I was actually noting that for Holly. I enjoy Philip Schaff’s work myself.

 

[Holly3278]

Linguistic quibble – “anti” means “against”; the word you need here is “ante,” which means “prior to.”

If you want details, I would suggest reading Phillip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, chapter IV, sections 50-52, available on-line here:

ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch04.htm

Ooops!

So if I understand correctly, they were elected by the Diocese of Rome?

 

[Bergon]

So if I understand correctly, they were elected by the Diocese of Rome?

Yes, they were. That’s how cardinals eventually came into being (condensing hundreds of years of history into a sentence): cardinal-bishops - the bishops of Rome’s neighbouring dioceses; cardinal-priests - from the Roman presbyterium; cardinal-deacons - from the deacons of the Roman diocese.

 

[DaveBj]

So if I understand correctly, they were elected by the Diocese of Rome?

That is my understanding as well. Also, I haven’t check my “terminology history,” but at this time I don’t think that the bishops of Rome were known as popes (“papas”) yet.

 

[Bergon]

That is my understanding as well. Also, I haven’t check my “terminology history,” but at this time I don’t think that the bishops of Rome were known as popes (“papas”) yet.

While the term wasn’t then exclusively used by the Bishop of Rome I think they used it because all bishops then were so addressed.