Scenario of non-cardinal being elected Pope

[Young_Thinker]

Greetings, everyone. I was wondering if anyone knew what the procedures would be if a non-cardinal were to be elected to the Papacy. I realize that this has not happened for the past 600 years, but I was curious as to how the Sacred College would perform this action. For instance, if the electee is not part of the Conclave (which would be the case for one who is not a cardinal), how would he know that he has been chosen or had even been considered? In addition, would such a man, for reasons of practicality, need to be Rome at the time of the Conclave? I read that after the death of Paul IV in 1559, Fr. Diego Laynez, the second Superior-General of the Society of Jesus, fled after learning that he was being seriously considered for St. Peter’s Chair. If he had remained within the vicinity and were elected Pontiff, could he have accepted the position, given that he was a Jesuit? Another example would be when a few votes had been allegedly cast for Archbishop Lefevre (this was before his excommunication) within the August conclave of 1978. I would be grateful for insights on this issue.

 

[PJM]

=Young Thinker;7901982]Greetings, everyone. I was wondering if anyone knew what the procedures would be if a non-cardinal were to be elected to the Papacy. I realize that this has not happened for the past 600 years, but I was curious as to how the Sacred College would perform this action. For instance, if the electee is not part of the Conclave (which would be the case for one who is not a cardinal), how would he know that he has been chosen or had even been considered? In addition, would such a man, for reasons of practicality, need to be Rome at the time of the Conclave? I read that after the death of Paul IV in 1559, Fr. Diego Laynez, the second Superior-General of the Society of Jesus, fled after learning that he was being seriously considered for St. Peter’s Chair. If he had remained within the vicinity and were elected Pontiff, could he have accepted the position, given that he was a Jesuit? I would be grateful for insights on this matter.

The probability is nearly NOT

The Consistory would have to after long deliberations conclude that not One of the Cardinals is worthy of the position. In that this is GUIDED by the Holy Spirit; it seems to me the HS would provide an alternative.

My limited understanding of Jesuits is thet they do not consider Episcopacy or Papacy to be part of their call. Their is at least one Jesuit Bishop/ cardinal but I forget his name.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[chevalier]

Jesuit bishops have happened despite the general notion. The cardinal PJM was talking about is likely to be Cardinal Dulles, deceased 2008, who received a dispensation from being ordained bishop due to his advanced age (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avery_Dulles).

 

[Young_Thinker]

Indeed, I know that there have been a number of Jesuit cardinals and bishops, but I wonder if there would be any feasible circumstances for a Jesuit Father Superior to be raised to the cardinalate or, in all unlikelihood, the pontificate. I understand that Jesuits are supposed to be obedient to the Pope, but could a Jesuit “legally” (within the eyes of his vows) hold that position himself? I know that neither has ever been done before (i.e. a Jesuit pope or a Father Superior becoming a bishop or cardinal).

 

[JamestheOlder]

It would seem that such a likely candidate would at least need to be ordained a priest, then (after election) consecrated bishop (of Rome).

Highly unlikely, though not impossible.

 

[Spirithound]

I was wondering if anyone knew what the procedures would be if a non-cardinal were to be elected to the Papacy. I was curious as to how the Sacred College would perform this action. For instance, if the electee is not part of the Conclave, how would he know that he has been chosen or had even been considered? In addition, would such a man, for reasons of practicality, need to be Rome at the time of the Conclave? I read that after the death of Paul IV in 1559, Fr. Diego Laynez, the second Superior-General of the Society of Jesus, fled after learning that he was being seriously considered for St. Peter’s Chair. If he had remained within the vicinity and were elected Pontiff, could he have accepted the position, given that he was a Jesuit? Another example would be when a few votes had been allegedly cast for Archbishop Lefevre (this was before his excommunication) within the August conclave of 1978. I would be grateful for insights on this issue.

If a non-cardinal were being considered for the papacy but never elected, ideally he would never find out about it, since the proceedings of the conclave are secret (First rule of Conclave: You do not talk about Conclave. Second rule of Conclave: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT CONCLAVE!)

If, however, he were elected, somebody would have to inform him. I don’t know whether this would be done by telephone or in person. In the old days, back when conclave was a little more hardcore, I suppose the cardinals would have to give the people outside the Sistine Chapel a name so they would unlock the door for them. Perhaps in modern times he would be summoned in secret.

A Jesuit could conceivably become Pope. If he can be a bishop (and he can), he can become Pope.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Greetings, everyone. I was wondering if anyone knew what the procedures would be if a non-cardinal were to be elected to the Papacy. I realize that this has not happened for the past 600 years, but I was curious as to how the Sacred College would perform this action. For instance, if the electee is not part of the Conclave (which would be the case for one who is not a cardinal), how would he know that he has been chosen or had even been considered? In addition, would such a man, for reasons of practicality, need to be Rome at the time of the Conclave? I read that after the death of Paul IV in 1559, Fr. Diego Laynez, the second Superior-General of the Society of Jesus, fled after learning that he was being seriously considered for St. Peter’s Chair. If he had remained within the vicinity and were elected Pontiff, could he have accepted the position, given that he was a Jesuit? Another example would be when a few votes had been allegedly cast for Archbishop Lefevre (this was before his excommunication) within the August conclave of 1978. I would be grateful for insights on this issue.

I don’t know how a non-cardinal would be informed of his election. However, I believe there are the following procedures: (1) if a layman or deacon he would be ordained priest then immediately ordained as a bishop; (2) if a priest he would be ordianed a bishop. This would only happen if he accepted his election. If already a bishop he would just have to accept his election. Then, whichever of the foregoing had happened, he could choose between a Mass of Installation or a Papal Coronation. I undestand that religious cannot, because of the vow of obedience, refuse election. I suppose a religious could in obedience accept his election and then as Pope immediately abdicate.

 

[JimG]

Under the current rules pertaining to conclaves, if I recall correctly, only Cardinals younger than a certain age would be eligible to be nominated. That would pretty much limit the candidates to those attending the conclave.

However, should extraordinary circumstances require the nomination or election of someone outside the conclave–let’s say me, for example–several things would have to occur.

First, some cardinal would have to nominate me. Then I would have to be elected by the requisite majority. Then some courier would have to be sent to Kansas to ask if I would accept the election. [Heck, we already have one papal claimant in Kansas.] If I should accept, I would have to be transported to the conclave, be ordained a deacon, priest, and bishop, and then I could accept the election!

But the Holy Spirit has better sense than to allow such a thing.

 

[JimG]

The procedures for election of a new pope can be found here.

 

[TheMc]

But the Holy Spirit has better sense than to allow such a thing.

What what you say, you might find yourself wearing white…
The foolishness of God is higher than the wisdom of men…

 

[Spirithound]

I undestand that religious cannot, because of the vow of obedience, refuse election. I suppose a religious could in obedience accept his election and then as Pope immediately abdicate.

I doubt that the vow of obedience could apply here. A religious only owes obedience to his superior and the pope. Even accepting episcopal ordination doesn’t seem like something that can be compelled under obedience.

 

[MarkThompson]

Under the current rules pertaining to conclaves, if I recall correctly, only Cardinals younger than a certain age would be eligible to be nominated. That would pretty much limit the candidates to those attending the conclave.

However, should extraordinary circumstances require the nomination or election of someone outside the conclave–let’s say me, for example–several things would have to occur.

First, some cardinal would have to nominate me. Then I would have to be elected by the requisite majority. Then some courier would have to be sent to Kansas to ask if I would accept the election. [Heck, we already have one papal claimant in Kansas.] If I should accept, I would have to be transported to the conclave, be ordained a deacon, priest, and bishop, and then I could accept the election!

But the Holy Spirit has better sense than to allow such a thing.

Conclaves do not have a “nomination” process as such. Each vote that is taken, the cardinals are give a blank ballot and write down the name of whomever they like. So there is no rule about who can be nominated (you’re probably thinking of the rule that only cardinals younger than 80 can vote in a conclave), and any baptized Catholic male can be elected.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Under the current rules pertaining to conclaves, if I recall correctly, only Cardinals younger than a certain age would be eligible to be nominated. That would pretty much limit the candidates to those attending the conclave.

However, should extraordinary circumstances require the nomination or election of someone outside the conclave–let’s say me, for example–several things would have to occur.

First, some cardinal would have to nominate me. Then I would have to be elected by the requisite majority. Then some courier would have to be sent to Kansas to ask if I would accept the election. [Heck, we already have one papal claimant in Kansas.] If I should accept, I would have to be transported to the conclave, be ordained a deacon, priest, and bishop, and then I could accept the election!

But the Holy Spirit has better sense than to allow such a thing.

I think that the under 80 rule only applies to those cardinals who can enter conclave. I don’t think it restricts the cardinal-electors to only electing those who enter conclave.

There are strictly no candidates or nominations. We all know that cardinals participate in pre-election negotiations. However, they’re not presented with pre-printed ballot papers with candidates names on They write down the name of the person whom the Holy Spirit moves them to elect.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I doubt that the vow of obedience could apply here. A religious only owes obedience to his superior and the pope. Even accepting episcopal ordination doesn’t seem like something that can be compelled under obedience.

When I made that post I was relying on my memory of something I read some time ago. Perhaps a religious on the thread can advise us how their vow of obedience obliges them. I’m sure they’re bound to obey all lawful ecclesiastical authority. During an interregnum in the Papacy, the College of Cardinals is effectively the highest ecclesiastical authority and therefore a religious elected as Pope would be bound to accept in obedience to the College. That is what I remember.

 

[Digitonomy]

Raymond Flynn, former mayor of Boston and US Ambassador to the Holy See, wrote a whimsical book about this topic, The Accidental Pope. There were some notable factual inaccuracies, such as mistaking the Republic of the Congo for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and a papal encyclical being released during the interregnum. However, it does explore some of the interesting issues that would have to be addressed.

In the book, a cardinal is sent to the US to summon the candidate. If I recall, the vote at that point was deadlocked between a Ratzinger-like favorite and Vatican insider, and the book’s protagonist, a laicized priest who had since married, had children, and been widowed. The press is only told that the cardinal is being sent to investigate some unspecified matter. The priest flies to Rome on a separate flight so no one will suspect the truth. In Rome, the priest is given the title of monsignor by some bishop affiliated with the American embassy who understands what is going on, and he is thus able to wear slightly more impressive vestments when introduced to the conclave.

 

[JimG]

Conclaves do not have a “nomination” process as such. Each vote that is taken, the cardinals are give a blank ballot and write down the name of whomever they like. So there is no rule about who can be nominated (you’re probably thinking of the rule that only cardinals younger than 80 can vote in a conclave), and any baptized Catholic male can be elected.

You are correct. By “nominate” I simply meant that some Cardinal would write my name on the ballot. But since none of the Cardinals know my name, unlike at the local tavern, the prospect is unlikely.

 

[Digitonomy]

During an interregnum in the Papacy, the College of Cardinals is effectively the highest ecclesiastical authority and therefore a religious elected as Pope would be bound to accept in obedience to the College. That is what I remember.

Here is Wikipedia’s take:

Once the election concludes, the Cardinal Dean summons the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations into the hall. The Cardinal Dean then asks the Pope-elect if he assents to the election, saying in Latin: “Acceptasne electionem de te canonice factam in Summum Pontificem? (Do you accept your canonical election as Supreme Pontiff?).” There is no requirement that the Pope-elect do so: he is free to say “non accepto” (I don’t accept). In practice, however, any potential Pope-elect who intends not to accept will explicitly state this before he has been given a sufficient number of votes to become Pope. This has happened in modern times with Giovanni Colombo in October 1978[48] and, according to some sources,[who?] with Jorge Bergoglio in 2005. The only significant case where a cardinal did refuse the Papacy after being given a sufficient number of votes was Charles Borromeo in the sixteenth century.

 

[chevalier]

At least one deacon elected Pope happened somewhere around 13th century if I recall correctly and there was a layman elected pope some time prior to 10th.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Theoretically, any Catholic male adult COULD be elected to be the Pope. They would have to ordain him Priest, and then Bishop, but this technically COULD happen.

If the conclave were to elect someone as pope that was not a Cardinal, they could choose any person that is eligible. Yes, a Jesuit, or a Franciscan could become Pope )there are several that have become Cardinals).

They need not be in Rome to be elected. However, if the conclave were to do this, they would have to send someone from the conclave to bring the person to Rome (which would break secrecy).

The reality is, this is VERY unlikely to happen (unlike the movie Angels & Demons). In order to be elected, such a person would have to be very well known to all of the Cardinals, known as a very holy person, and such a candidate would most likely already be close to the Holy See.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Here is Wikipedia’s take:

I accept that a vague: “I remember reading something …” is not the best source of evidence. If I could recall where I read it I would (1) go back and check and (2) if I had remembered correctly I’d cite it as a source.

As for Wikipedia, I don’t consider that to be a reliable source.

Although Encyclopaedia Britannica (to which I have an online description) is admittedly less enlightening:

When one person has received the required majority, the dean of the cardinals formally asks him whether he accepts his election and what name he wishes to assume.