Popes Were Appointed?

[randomusername]

A Protestant was telling me the other day that during the early medieval period, Popes were appointed by the Holy Roman Emperors. He said that this only stopped with Pope Gregory VII. From a few quick searches, there seems to be evidence for this. I’m not sure what this would mean if it’s true but it doesn’t sound good.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

I think at one time this was true (someone else can provide evidence or correct me). Even so, this doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Jesus appointed his apostles; they appointed their successors; even now, the Pope appoints our bishops. If a bad emperor were to appoint a bad pope, the Church is still guided by the Holy Spirit, and the promise still holds that “the gates of hell shall not prevail”.

 

[eightydeuce82]

A Protestant was telling me the other day that during the early medieval period, Popes were appointed by the Holy Roman Emperors. He said that this only stopped with Pope Gregory VII. From a few quick searches, there seems to be evidence for this. I’m not sure what this would mean if it’s true but it doesn’t sound good.

It doesn’t mean anything. There have been plenty of “bad Popes” in history. Just like there have been plenty of bad people in history. Just because someone becomes a priest does not make them somehow a super human free from sin. There is a reason why not many Popes are considered saints of the Church. Being appointed by a Roman Emperor or being appointed by the college of cardinals really doesn’t matter. Not a single “bad Pope” ever taught anything dogmatic or changed anything regarding the faith. The image they presented of the Church was certainly bad but since when does the character of someone effect the teaching and authority of the church. Its a straw man argument anyway.

 

[JerryZ]

A Protestant was telling me the other day that during the early medieval period, Popes were appointed by the Holy Roman Emperors. He said that this only stopped with Pope Gregory VII. From a few quick searches, there seems to be evidence for this. I’m not sure what this would mean if it’s true but it doesn’t sound good.

:hmm: Let’s see the arguments: “Early medieval period AND Holy Roman Emperors”

The Roman Empire of the West collapsed around 476 ce so there were NO emperors in Rome after that.

Some of the rulers of the states that succeeded the demise of the Roman Empire tried to have a saying in the appointment of the Pope AND also of the Bishops that were assigned to the Dioscesis in their countries. But they met with serious resistance from the Pontificate.

Perhaps your misinformed protestant friend refers to the selection of the Patriarch of Constantinople by the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire whom by the way DID try also to influence the affairs of the Holy See but alas that did not work out for them either.

---

 

[1ke]

A Protestant was telling me the other day that during the early medieval period, Popes were appointed by the Holy Roman Emperors. He said that this only stopped with Pope Gregory VII. From a few quick searches, there seems to be evidence for this. I’m not sure what this would mean if it’s true but it doesn’t sound good.

Perhaps it is best that you investigate these claims from a solid Catholic source.

newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm

The above rendition of "facts’ is askew. But, what would it mean if it were accurate? Absolutely nothing.

 

[eightydeuce82]

A Protestant was telling me the other day that during the early medieval period, Popes were appointed by the Holy Roman Emperors. He said that this only stopped with Pope Gregory VII. From a few quick searches, there seems to be evidence for this. I’m not sure what this would mean if it’s true but it doesn’t sound good.

Can I ask why it would change your view if a Pope had been appointed?

 

[randomusername]

:hmm: Let’s see the arguments: “Early medieval period AND Holy Roman Emperors”

The Roman Empire of the West collapsed around 476 ce so there were NO emperors in Rome after that.

Some of the rulers of the states that succeeded the demise of the Roman Empire tried to have a saying in the appointment of the Pope AND also of the Bishops that were assigned to the Dioscesis in their countries. But they met with serious resistance from the Pontificate.

Perhaps your misinformed protestant friend refers to the selection of the Patriarch of Constantinople by the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire whom by the way DID try also to influence the affairs of the Holy See but alas that did not work out for them either.

---

Holy Roman Emperors are different to Roman Emperors. Holy Roman Emperors were crowned by the Pope and ruled over Germany, Bohemia and Italy. The Holy Roman Empire was founded by either Charlemagne in the 800s or Otto in the 900s depending on how you look at it. They have no connection with the Roman Empire besides the fact that they claimed they were the successors to it.

 

[tafan]

A Protestant was telling me the other day that during the early medieval period, Popes were appointed by the Holy Roman Emperors. He said that this only stopped with Pope Gregory VII. From a few quick searches, there seems to be evidence for this. I’m not sure what this would mean if it’s true but it doesn’t sound good.

Lets work backwards from Gregory VII a ways (the coronation of the Charlemagne as the first Holy Roman Emperor)

Alexander II - elected by conclave in 1061
Nicolas II - elected in 1059 in conclave in Sienna
Stephen IX - Catholic encyclopedia simply says he wa “freely chosen” of Victor II in 1057
Victor II - Nominated by Emperor (at request of Hildebrand (later Gregory VII) and then formally elected in Rome in 1055
Leo IX - was selected by the Emperor and Roman delegates at an assembly in Worms in 1048 and agreed to be Pope if freely elected by Roman people.
Damascus II - appointed by Emperor in 1048 and after a lot of confusion was received in Rome by the people as pope (very short papacy)
Benedict IX - essentially appointed by Emperor in 1032, but it gets really confusing here, as he was disposed by a council, and eventually resigned. Easiest for this thread just to jump to :
John XIX: elected 1024
Benedict VIII: imposed on the chair of Peter by force in 1012
Serious IV : elected 1009
John XVIII - 1003 , not for sure how this came about
John XVII - elected 1003
Sylvester II elected 999

That’s far enough. As you can see, it was a period of much turmoil in Rome and the Church. Now, there was always the formality of an election, even for Benedict VIII, but the electors enjoyed no freedom of choice.

There is a reason why Gregory VII (Hildebrand) is considered such an important pope. The late 10th and early 11th century was the period where the Roman church most closely descended to Caesaropapism.
Nevertheless, these men were true popes. Not good popes necessarily, but valid popes.

 

[Memaw]

It doesn’t mean anything. There have been plenty of “bad Popes” in history. Just like there have been plenty of bad people in history. Just because someone becomes a priest does not make them somehow a super human free from sin. There is a reason why not many Popes are considered saints of the Church. Being appointed by a Roman Emperor or being appointed by the college of cardinals really doesn’t matter. Not a single “bad Pope” ever taught anything dogmatic or changed anything regarding the faith. The image they presented of the Church was certainly bad but since when does the character of someone effect the teaching and authority of the church. Its a straw man argument anyway.

Not “plenty”, from what read just 3 and they never did a thing to harm Church teaching. They just lived sinful lives themselves. Your right, the Holy Spirit protects the Church even from weak and sinful Popes, Bishops, Priest and even us lay Catholics !! Thank GOD. God Bless, Memaw

 

[HelenRose]

Perhaps it is best that you investigate these claims from a solid Catholic source.

newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm

The above rendition of "facts’ is askew. But, what would it mean if it were accurate? Absolutely nothing.

The fact that the Church has survived long enough to have the wonderful popes of the last century and this century, for me, is a miracle.

No other institution has lasted so long and has done so much good. I live in Colorado beneath beautiful mountains and mesas. When I hear people dragging up this or that tidbit about the Catholic Church, I compare it to people who complain about the mountains because there are mosquitoes in the summer.

Such beauty, such goodness and so many people who love to complain.