Papal Conclave and Rome

[someone]

Today, the Church utilizes a papal conclave to select the next pope. As the pope is the Vicar of Christ and is the source of unity of the Catholic Church, this makes sense as cardinals from across the globe contribute to the selection process.

But that leads me to a few questions:

1. Why was there no papal conclave for the first 1000 years of church history?
2. If representation from the rest of the church wasn’t utilized in these first 1000 years in selecting the pope, what made the Bishop of Rome uniquely qualified to be the pope and source of unity? (Is it just that because St Peter died in Rome?)
3. Why has Italy always (including today) been so over-represented in the college of cardinals?

 

[commenter]

There has always been some sort of process, or conclave, for choosing popes. The process has changed over the years.
Rome was the final See of St. Peter, both he and St. Paul died there. There is evidence from the early Church if its primacy.
Given the state of transportation and communication until very recently it was natural that Church leaders would often come from the area around the capital, since those people knew each other, and rarely knew people from far away.
That pattern has mostly changed, and is still changing.

 

[Maximilian75]

Why was there no papal conclave for the first 1000 years of church history?

Granted, it’s not a papal conclave, but still relevant. See Acts 1:12-26

 

[KevinK]

Good questions that I have also. No good responses yet.

 

[Fauken]

Why has Italy always (including today) been so over-represented in the college of cardinals?

A Cardinal is considered, among other things, a cleric in the Diocese of Rome. If one is to be a cleric in Rome, which is in Italy, doesn’t it make sense that at least the majority of them be close to that Diocese?

 

[someone]

What responsibilities or powers come with being a cleric of Rome?

Also, isnt the primary responsibility of a cardinal to select a pope?

 

[Fauken]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm

“It is the duty of the cardinals to assist the pope at the chief liturgical services known as capellæ papales, to distinguish them from the capellæ cardinaliciæ, at which the pope is not present; also to counsel him and aid in the government of the Church(c. 17 in VIto de electione, I, 6; Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, de ref., c. 1, and Sess. XXV, de ref., c. 1). Hence the cardinals are obliged to reside at Rome and cannot leave the Papal States without permission of the pope. The violation of this law entails grave penalties, even the loss of the cardinalitial dignity (C. 2, X, de clerico non residente, III, 4; Leo X, “Supernæ”, 5 May, 1514, § 28, in “Bullar. Rom.”, V, 604 sqq.; Innocent X, “Cum juxta”, 19 Feb., 1646, in “Bullar. Rom.”, XV, 441 sqq.).”

“After the full development of the authority of the College of Cardinals, as above described, the latter took charge and exercised its power in very many ways; some canonists went so far as to maintain that during the vacancy of the Apostolic See the College of Cardinals possessed the fullness of the papal prerogative. Their authority was exercised chiefly in two ways, in the administration of the States of the Church and in the election of the new pope.”

 

[Gabika50]

Question 3 answer : Basically not so many italians as before:
From a May 2018 Reuters article: The pope appointed 11 new voting cardinals. After this latest group was elevated at a June 29 ceremony in Vatican City, the College of Cardinals has 125 voting members, 42% of whom are European, down from 52% in 2013.

 

[midori]

Don’t forget that the Papal States were a series of territories under direct sovereign rule of the Pope.

So basically, for the first 300 years of its existence, the Church wasn’t allowed to hold property. All the holdings were held by individuals, not the Church. After Constantine, they were able to come out of hiding and hold property openly.

Then over the next 300 years, politics changed as the Byzantines were unable to hold on to their influence, leaving the Pope in Rome as one of the major stable political figures. By the time you get to Charlemagne, he gifted vast amounts of territory to the Pope: not just the Duchy of Rome, but also Ravenna, the Duchy of the Pentapolis, parts of the Duchy of Benevento, Tuscany, Corsica, Lombardy and a number of Italian cities.

Stuff fluctuated over the next thousand years. You had massive expansion of Papal territory during the Renaissance, like with Alexander VI and Julius II. You had all the messiness of the Reformation— the Holy Roman Empire tried to sack Rome; the Protestants tried to sack Rome; you had annexations; you had the Pope’s army vs Philip II of Spain; you had all kinds of stuff going on. Then a bit later, you had the French Revolution and you had Napoleon and everything that affected the Papal States from that direction. And eventually, you had the unification of Italy in 1861.

The Kingdom of Italy decided to eliminate the Papal States in 1870-- and pretty much did so. This coincided with Vatican I, which was from 1869-1870, and caused it to end with their work incomplete. By 1929, you had the Lateran Treaty, which established Vatican City and pretty much shelved the idea of the Papal States ever being a Thing again.

You’ll also notice that during the course of the entire 20th century, the Vatican has been shedding its trappings of temporal power, and have been returning to their roots. The temporal power was understandable— since it had come about as a direct result of centuries’ worth of oppression. They wanted to give themselves a secure place in the world. But being able to relinquish the temporal power and focus on what’s most important— that takes a lot of humility.

 

[midori]

So, for example, in 1968, the Papal Court was abolished. (Think of a king surrounded by all his courtiers.) Paul VI was the last Pope to be crowned with a papal tiara-- and he only wore it at the beginning of his reign. John Paul I had an “inauguration”, and John Paul II thought that a coronation would be inappropriate after such a short reign from his predecessor. Benedict XVI even took out the papal tiara from his coat of arms, and replaced it with a regular bishop’s mitre. Pope Francis doesn’t even live in the Apostolic Palace…

So, with all that political backdrop---- it made sense with all that temporal power, that you’d keep it within the circles you knew. So the Cardinals were generally Italian (even before the Unified Kingdom of Italy existed) because you knew who they were— you weren’t giving all this centralized power off to the Portuguese or the Indians or the Egyptians. And travel/information wasn’t so easy back then, so the most important posts were given to people who were geographically closest to the center of power. And the Popes were generally selected from the circles they were most familiar with-- the last non-Italian pontiff before John Paul II was Adrian VI, a Dutchman, in 1522.

But as the temporal/political emphasis has faded, and as travel has become easier, and the dissemination of information has become instantaneous, geography has become less important. And so we’ve had a Pole, a German, and an Argentinian elected Pope over the last 40 years. And at the same time, faith communities have matured, so over the last 50-60 years, we’re now having cardinals from places like Peru or Japan or Madagascar— but 200 years ago, that would have been impractical.