Kings elected Popes?

[ChristRocket]

Today, while visiting Catholic.org I came across a couple of biographies of Popes (I’m sure there are more.)
I came across Pope Sylvester II under whom it says- “Otto II (King of Germany and Roman Emperor) choose Gerbert to succeed Gregory V in 999 and gave the pope the eight counties of the Pentapolis”

Under Pope Gregory V’s biography, it states something similar- He was the grandson of Emperor Otto I and was made pope by his cousin, Otto III, in 996.

And under Pope Gregory V’s biography it also states-He crowned his cousin Holy Roman Emperor after his own coronation as pope.

It sounds like a bunch of politics.

I wasn’t aware that Pope’s were put in place by kings or visa versa.

Can someone help explain to me why it is that someone other than The Church selected Popes?

 

[Steveabrous]

This is precisely why we have priestly celibacy. There was too much of that stuff going on

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

This is precisely why we have priestly celibacy. There was too much of that stuff going on

What does priestly celibacy have to do with the history of royal interference with the papacy noted by the OP? Even celibate priests have grandfathers and cousins. I don’t see where the papacy was inherited by a pope’s son.

 

[Steveabrous]

What does priestly celibacy have to do with the history of royal interference with the papacy noted by the OP? Even celibate priests have grandfathers and cousins. I don’t see where the papacy was inherited by a pope’s son.

It was put into place to curb nepotism. At least that was what I was told in RCIA. I guess the idea is that it would deter those wanting power and would only attract those who truely wanted to serve. Most people who want power are not willing to be celibate

 

[robwar]

Today, while visiting Catholic.org I came across a couple of biographies of Popes (I’m sure there are more.)
I came across Pope Sylvester II under whom it says- “Otto II (King of Germany and Roman Emperor) choose Gerbert to succeed Gregory V in 999 and gave the pope the eight counties of the Pentapolis”

Under Pope Gregory V’s biography, it states something similar- He was the grandson of Emperor Otto I and was made pope by his cousin, Otto III, in 996.

And under Pope Gregory V’s biography it also states-He crowned his cousin Holy Roman Emperor after his own coronation as pope.

It sounds like a bunch of politics.

I wasn’t aware that Pope’s were put in place by kings or visa versa.

Can someone help explain to me why it is that someone other than The Church selected Popes?

You have to keep in mind that the 900s was considered a low point in papal history and kings picking popes or trying to influence them is the reason by we have the current system of how Popes are picked which is in privacy and seclusion to avoid these sorts of issues. It has nothing to do with celebacy at all. Celebate Popes have families as well. Likewise we are trying to judge and understand things that happen over a thousand years ago with our modern understand and views. That doesn’t justify politics but the past always needs to be evaluated with this in mind.

 

[powerofk]

Today, while visiting Catholic.org I came across a couple of biographies of Popes (I’m sure there are more.)
I came across Pope Sylvester II under whom it says- “Otto II (King of Germany and Roman Emperor) choose Gerbert to succeed Gregory V in 999 and gave the pope the eight counties of the Pentapolis”

Under Pope Gregory V’s biography, it states something similar- He was the grandson of Emperor Otto I and was made pope by his cousin, Otto III, in 996.

And under Pope Gregory V’s biography it also states-He crowned his cousin Holy Roman Emperor after his own coronation as pope.

It sounds like a bunch of politics.

I wasn’t aware that Pope’s were put in place by kings or visa versa.

Can someone help explain to me why it is that someone other than The Church selected Popes?

Right. The way the Pope is selected now has only been going on for less than 1000 years. Jesus chose Peter, of course, but He did not specify how Peter should choose a successor (tradition has it that Peter self-appointed Linus to be his successor, Linus self-appointed Clement, and so on). Eventually, the bishop of Rome was chosen by the priests, deacons, and high-ranking laity of the Roman diocese. These were called the “heart” of the diocese of Rome (Cardinal actually comes from the Latin for heart - and all Cardinals today have titular parishes in the diocese of Rome).

The Pope, however, ended up becoming more than a bishop - he was actually a worldly king during the Middle Ages - all the way through the 1800’s (technically he is today, as well, but the Vatican City-State exists primarily so that the Pope cannot be considered the subject of any earthly ruler, and it is so small that the Pope’s only subjects are the curia). Kings, of course, often tried to meddle in the successions of other kingdoms - and since the Pope was the only king without a legitimate blood heir (yes, some not-so-holy Popes had affairs and illegitimate children), it was easier to meddle in the affairs of electing a pope. Some kings were given “veto” power (which ended after the election of Pius X) but more often, they would order the Cardinals from their kingdoms to elect a Pope based upon allegiances.

But remember, this is not much different from how Jewish High Priests were chosen after the exile of Onias III. Jason was picked by Antiochus IV, who changed his mind and chose Menelaus. Afterwards, all three died, and the high priesthood was vacant for a time until Demetrius I chose Jonathan (Judas Maccabeus’s brother - Judas had already been killed), and after Jonathan was assassinated, Simon (another brother) became high priest and ethnarch.

These two titles passed down to his son, John Hyrcanus, and thus became the Hasmonean line. Eventually, brothers Hyrcanus II and Astrilobus II were both given power (one was high priest, the other ethnarch), but they fought over it - bringing Rome to resolve the debate, and eventually placing Herod on the throne as a client king (whose ethnarchy was divided into three upon his death - the incompetence of Archelaus resulted in his deposition and replacement by direct Roman rule). The Romans also chose the Jewish High Priest (which is how Anias and Caiaphas became high priests).

Regardless of how they were chosen, though, the high priest was given the ability to prophecy, sometimes unknowingly (Caiaphas prophesied that it be better for one man to die (Jesus) than the entire people - he thought he meant that killing Jesus would protect the Jews from being killed by the Romans, but the meaning of the prophecy was that killing Jesus would protect all humanity from damnation, as He was a perfect sacrifice to God). Just so, the Pope also has this power… and cannot err when teaching faith or morals (even if he is not a moral person himself).

 

[patrick457]

But remember, this is not much different from how Jewish High Priests were chosen after the exile of Onias III. Jason was picked by Antiochus IV, who changed his mind and chose Menelaus. Afterwards, all three died, and the high priesthood was vacant for a time until Demetrius I chose Jonathan (Judas Maccabeus’s brother - Judas had already been killed), and after Jonathan was assassinated, Simon (another brother) became high priest and ethnarch.

These two titles passed down to his son, John Hyrcanus, and thus became the Hasmonean line.

Fun fact: the Maccabees/Hasmoneans were not Zadokites (though they were priests), which is why some Jews contested their legitimacy to hold the office. In fact, the Community at Qumran seems to have withdrawn in the desert precisely because of this issue: their founding members were priests who did not accept the authority of the Hasmonean high priest-kings. (It’s no surprise then I guess that we have no copies of 1 Maccabees at least - 2 Maccabees was a diaspora work - in the Dead Sea Scrolls.)

Onias III’s son, Onias IV (a Zadokite), actually seems to have hoped that the Maccabean victory would land him in the position. But when it turned out that this was not to be the case (he was passed over in favor of Alcimus - a non-Zadokite priest - and later, the Maccabees took the office for themselves) - you know what he did? He and some followers went to Egypt (incidentally, the territory of the Seleucids’ political rivals, the Ptolemies) and built a Jewish temple there - which Onias intended to be a replacement for the one in Jerusalem desecrated by the Seleucids. (That would be the second Jewish temple in Egypt; a much earlier one was built by a Jewish community there a couple or so centuries back.)

Eventually, brothers Hyrcanus II and Astrilobus II were both given power (one was high priest, the other ethnarch), but they fought over it - bringing Rome to resolve the debate, and eventually placing Herod on the throne as a client king (whose ethnarchy was divided into three upon his death - the incompetence of Archelaus resulted in his deposition and replacement by direct Roman rule). The Romans also chose the Jewish High Priest (which is how Anias and Caiaphas became high priests).

The Romans just continued Herod the Great’s practice. Herod of course wasn’t a priest (he wasn’t a ‘natural’ Jew either; he was an Idumaean/Edomite by birth and a descendant of Jewish converts - when the Hasmoneans expanded their territory, they had the inhabitants of conquered areas - say, Idumaeans - convert to Judaism), so Herod appointed people to the position.

 

[powerofk]

Fun fact: the Maccabees/Hasmoneans were not Zadokites (though they were priests), which is why some Jews contested their legitimacy to hold the office. In fact, the Community at Qumran seems to have withdrawn in the desert precisely because of this issue: their founding members were priests who did not accept the authority of the Hasmonean high priest-kings. (It’s no surprise then I guess that we have no copies of 1 Maccabees at least - 2 Maccabees was a diaspora work - in the Dead Sea Scrolls.)

Of course, lest we forget, Zadok himself was given the high priesthood by Solomon - Abiathar was high priest under King David, but King Solomon stripped Abiathar of the high priesthood and gave it to Zadok, primarily because Abiathar supported Solomon’s brother for the kingship. This was the completion of the prophecy that Samuel proclaimed to Eli - that his family would be stripped of the high priesthood, as Abiathar was a decendant of Eli.

 

[patrick457]

Of course, lest we forget, Zadok himself was given the high priesthood by Solomon - Abiathar was high priest under King David, but King Solomon stripped Abiathar of the high priesthood and gave it to Zadok, primarily because Abiathar supported Solomon’s brother for the kingship. This was the completion of the prophecy that Samuel proclaimed to Eli - that his family would be stripped of the high priesthood, as Abiathar was a decendant of Eli.

This was of course an exception to the rule back then, since the high priesthood was supposed to be hereditary. This was the case up to Menelaus I think; since then the office became by appointment, with whoever is in power choosing who gets to be high priest. (The Hasmoneans are the exception of course since they claimed the high priesthood; during their reign the position again became hereditary somewhat, until Herod the Great stepped in.) The last high priest (Phannias son of Samuel) was actually chosen by lot by the Zealots after they both took control and overthrew the preceding high priest (Mattathias son of Theophilus).

Going back on topic, there was actually a period known as the ‘Byzantine papacy’ (537-752), when Byzantine emperors essentially chose who got to be pope. Popes during that period required the approval of the Byzantine emperor for consecration, and candidates were either chosen from the Greek-speaking inhabitants of Byzantine-controlled areas (Greece, Syria, or Sicily) or diplomats to the emperor (apocrisarii, essentially papal nuncios). In fact, out of the thirteen popes who reigned between 678 and 752 (essentially, from Agatho (678-681) up to Zachary (741–752)), only two were native Romans (Benedict II and Gregory II); the rest were from Byzantine areas, including Agatho and Zachary. Pope St. Gregory the Great was himself a former apocrisarius. It was the iconoclastic controversy under Emperor Leo III that ended this period. Soon the popes turned away from Byzantium to the Franks in the person of Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Emperors.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Kings elected Popes?

Well, they didn’t elect Popes, they appointed them. Kings, emperors, and influential laypeople appointed (and deposed!) many Popes If you didn’t think that a Pope could be deposed, well, it has happened. A lot. And, in some cases, a Pope was deposed and another put in his place, who is, by definition, an anti-Pope, but some of these anti-Popes are Saints of the Church! Catholic history can be a strange subject.

It was not unusual for a Pope to be installed by influential laypeople. This included a shameful 60-year period (in the Tenth Century) commonly called the Pornocracy, from the Greek term meaning “rule by prostitutes” (official name: saeculum obscurum, or “Dark Age”). The influential and corrupt Theophylacti family basically had the run of the Vatican for six decades (including an unusual amount of influence from women - hence the reference to harlots). The Pornocracy spanned the reign of twelve consecutive Popes, all of whom are among the worst Popes in Church history.

But it is a witness to the protection of the Holy Spirit that none of these despicable Popes ever taught error. Bad Popes can actually help support the idea that Popes are infallible. If every Pope had been saintly, the protection of the Holy Spirit would have never been put to the test. We’ve had some pretty crummy Popes, but none ever tried to enshrine their sins and faults into Catholic Doctrine.

Fortunately, for the Church, the manner in which the Pope is selected is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that he is recognized - by the Church - as the Bishop of Rome.

 

[simspt]

It was put into place to curb nepotism. At least that was what I was told in RCIA. I guess the idea is that it would deter those wanting power and would only attract those who truely wanted to serve. Most people who want power are not willing to be celibate

Or out of financial reasons. If bishop x dies the Church didn’t want to have to give any of its riches away to a potential wife possibly. The Catholic Church like any other organized institution has always had to deal with greed. Just look at this idiot bishop that spent 40 million on his residence. Thank God for Pope Francis getting rid of this greedy disgrace.

 

[simspt]

Today, while visiting Catholic.org I came across a couple of biographies of Popes (I’m sure there are more.)
I came across Pope Sylvester II under whom it says- “Otto II (King of Germany and Roman Emperor) choose Gerbert to succeed Gregory V in 999 and gave the pope the eight counties of the Pentapolis”

Under Pope Gregory V’s biography, it states something similar- He was the grandson of Emperor Otto I and was made pope by his cousin, Otto III, in 996.

And under Pope Gregory V’s biography it also states-He crowned his cousin Holy Roman Emperor after his own coronation as pope.

It sounds like a bunch of politics.

I wasn’t aware that Pope’s were put in place by kings or visa versa.

Can someone help explain to me why it is that someone other than The Church selected Popes?

Yes, politics has always played a role in the Church especially during the 4 TH century Arian controversy . The champion of orthodoxy st Athanasius was exiled 5 times. Roman politicians liked to appoint bishops with whatever theological leanings they held themselves. The politics played a huge role in the fact that at one point Arianism dominated the Catholic Church.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

So the important thing in determining the validity of the Successor of Peter is that he is the Bishop of Rome, not how he became the Bishop of Rome? Doesn’t this necessarily give rise to antipopes and undermine the “visible unity” that the Petrine Supremacy is supposed to protect?

 

[Randy_Carson]

So the important thing in determining the validity of the Successor of Peter is that he is the Bishop of Rome, not how he became the Bishop of Rome? Doesn’t this necessarily give rise to antipopes and undermine the “visible unity” that the Petrine Supremacy is supposed to protect?

Close.

The important thing in determining the validity of the Successor of Peter is that he was validly elected as the Bishop of Rome. A vallid election is how he becomes the Bishop of Rome.

There was some confusion on one occasion, but only one of several claimants was validly elected. Eventually, things were sorted out, and we moved on.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Close.

The important thing in determining the validity of the Successor of Peter is that he was validly elected as the Bishop of Rome. A vallid election is how he becomes the Bishop of Rome.

There was some confusion on one occasion, but only one of several claimants was validly elected. Eventually, things were sorted out, and we moved on.

But that doesn’t answer the question of how Popes are validly elected, if there has never been a time-honored, consistently applied mechanism in place. Your statement also begs the very question what about when Popes aren’t even elected!

Frankly, the issue of Papal selection I find to be very similar to the Eastern Orthodox problem of the ecumenicity of councils. How do we know when a council is ecumenical? How do we know when a Pope has been “validly elected”? “Eventually [it is] sorted out, and we move on”?

Imagine if you were living in the middle of the Western Schism, how would you know which Bishop of Rome was the true one, when three separate colleges of cardinals elected (from each of their own vantages) a “valid” one?

What if you were living in the low middle ages when some Pontiffs were appointed by secular rulers (without any co-claimants), do you then recognize him as the valid successor of St. Peter?

 

[powerofk]

But that doesn’t answer the question of how Popes are validly elected, if there has never been a time-honored, consistently applied mechanism in place. Your statement also begs the very question what about when Popes aren’t even elected!

As stated before, Jesus didn’t tell Peter how to appoint a successor. However, Jesus DID give Peter (specifically) and the Church (in general - by telling all of the apostles after the Resurrection) the power to bind and loose. In other words, they were given the authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, to write rules that would govern the Church. These rules are what are now called “Canon Law”. BTW, the book of Canon Law is shorter than the Affordable Care Act, and most US laws today. Regardless, one of the provisions in Canon Law is how the successor to the Pope will be chosen.

The current Pope can actually change (or waive) any provision in Canon Law should he choose to do so, though usually Popes don’t actually put forth major changes without a synod of bishops discussing the proposed change. This is due to the fact that Canon Law is not unchangeable doctrine - it is made of changeable disciplines. Pope Francis could, technically, change the Canon Law to make it so that the next Pope is again hand-selected by the current reigning Pope (as it was originally done - Peter hand-picked Linus to be his successor). Or, he could decide that the Pope should be selected by lot (as is done in the Coptic Orthodox Church). But he probably wouldn’t make such a drastic change unless the synod of bishops signed off on it and told him it was a good idea.

The reason why the selection of the Pope is today so secretive and has many laws has to do with abuses, both secular and clerical, of the Papacy. Popes have been elected for a long time. But, as happens with many world elections, especially before secret ballots, many world leaders would coerce the electors (none-too-gently, either) to vote for a hand-picked candidate. The reason behind the conclave? Interregnums used to take years, not days, weeks, or months, due to the Cardinals refusing to vote for the Pope. The laity got fed up, forced them to meet, and locked them in their meeting place with a key (con clave). Eventually, the laity even took away their food and the comfort of a roof due to the Cardinals refusing to vote. Suffice to say, these tactics worked so well that they’re now encoded in Canon Law regarding Papal Elections.

But see, regardless of the man who is elected to be Pope, or the method upon which he obtained the Papacy, God gives him the ability to guide His Church without changing the faith or morals, just as He gave the Jewish High Priests the gift of prophecy regardless of how the High Priest became High Priest. As stated before, Caiaphas was hand-picked by the Romans to be the Jewish High Priest. For 800 years, the High Priesthood was purely hereditary, limited only to the proper Zadokite line (before this, it seems that it rotated amonst the Aaronite clans).

But, starting with the Seluecid empire (specifically with Antiochus IV), the ruling empire hand-selected the High Priests. When the Maccabees (in the Hasmonean line) were given the High Priesthood, it stayed within their family until the civil war between Astrilobus II and Hyrcanus II, after which Herod was given client kingship and started hand-selecting High Priests himself. When Rome took direct control of Judea, they hand-selected High Priests themselves. However, regardless of how the High Priest became High Priest, he was considered “God’s anointed”, and endowed with gifts from God, notably, the gift of prophecy.

And, it was considered a grave sin to curse the High Priest. This is why Paul retracted his curse and charge of hypocrisy against the High Priest (saying “God will smite you, you whitewashed wall”) after he was notified that the person he had just cursed was the High Priest.

If God could endow the Jewish High Priests with such gifts, regardless of how sinful they were or how they obtained the office, He could surely give the same gifts to the Vicars of Christ, regardless of how sinful they are or how they obtained the office, especially since Jesus, God the Son, personally guaranteed to Peter that He was giving him the keys to Heaven. That means the Pope has the authority to make decisions in Jesus’s name, guided by the Holy Spirit, just as a Chancellor/Vizier/Vicar/Prime Minister (same job, different title based on location and tradition) has the keys to the kingdom and wears the signet ring of the king (the Pope’s “ring of the fisherman”) and promugates laws and decrees in the name of the king, regardless of how he obtained the position.

So, to answer your main question - yes, Popes are Pope simply because they are the Bishop of Rome - the way men were validly selected to become Bishop of Rome changed over time, as secular/clerical abuses forced them to change. By the way, the Western schism was primarily caused by the French being upset at their loss of Papal control. As such, after the validly-elected Pope returned to Rome from Avignon, the French and their allies refused to acknowledge that he had been validly elected and had their own conclave. Of course this caused scandal, as the laity saw two Popes, not knowing which one was the “true Pope”. It was a sad state of affairs, but it (and the Avignon papacy that preceded it) is part of the reason why Cardinals are hesitant to elect Popes from the most powerful countries - the Pope needs to be independent of secular power.

 

[TxGodfollower]

What does priestly celibacy have to do with the history of royal interference with the papacy noted by the OP? Even celibate priests have grandfathers and cousins. I don’t see where the papacy was inherited by a pope’s son.

Pope Hormisdas was the father of pope Silverius. He didn’t follow directly after him, I think it was like 14 years later. I think there was one other instance but I cant remember who it was.

 

[ChristRocket]

Thank you everyone for the wonderful answers and feedback.

I never really took into consideration the “High Priest” aspect.

Does anyone have a book on some of the history of all of this, something a little more friendly than reading encyclopedia entries on each of the Popes?

 

[ChristRocket]

Pope Hormisdas was the father of pope Silverius. He didn’t follow directly after him, I think it was like 14 years later. I think there was one other instance but I cant remember who it was.

Whether or not a Pope’s son ever became Pope, it doesn’t really matter. I have 3 children. I’m 25 years old. If my wife died tomorrow, I could raise my children, become a priest and possibly, although highly unlikely, but possibly be Pope one day. One of my sons could do the same.

I think that the point is, is that it was never considered a hereditary position, like a King or Monarch of some sort.

BTW-seeing your denomination, not to side track, but it’s great that you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I hope that your personal relationship with Jesus Christ reflects in your communal relationships, as Christ’s purpose was to bring us into communion with one another through Himself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But that doesn’t answer the question of how Popes are validly elected, if there has never been a time-honored, consistently applied mechanism in place. Your statement also begs the very question what about when Popes aren’t even elected!

Frankly, the issue of Papal selection I find to be very similar to the Eastern Orthodox problem of the ecumenicity of councils. How do we know when a council is ecumenical? How do we know when a Pope has been “validly elected”? “Eventually [it is] sorted out, and we move on”?

Imagine if you were living in the middle of the Western Schism, how would you know which Bishop of Rome was the true one, when three separate colleges of cardinals elected (from each of their own vantages) a “valid” one?

What if you were living in the low middle ages when some Pontiffs were appointed by secular rulers (without any co-claimants), do you then recognize him as the valid successor of St. Peter?

There can only be one President of the United States at a time, and there can only be one Bishop of Rome at a time.

During the Western Schism it APPEARED that more than one person was validly elected, but only one actually was. It took some time to sort it out, and during that process, people were confused as to who the valid pope was. Eventually, everything was sorted out.

Is this a problem in any way?