Seeking clarification on a note on Pope Leo VIII found in Annuario Pontificio (2001)

[DamienD]

”At this point, as again in the mid-eleventh century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonizing historical criteria and those of theology and canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the Successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the Popes.”

I don’t have access to this whole document so I can’t see the context. Wikipedia says that this is a note attached to Pope Leo VIII in The Annuario Pontificio (2001). I’m assuming that this note is saying that it is advisable not to assign numerical values to either this part of the list or the list as a whole because of certain difficulties that have arisen in the past with regards to who was the Pope at certain times.

A friend of mine said

It says the because there were multiple Popes at the same time. If the Church itself says it is impossible to know the direct link back to Peter doesn’t that put a hole in the importance to having a direct link?

I believe his is misconstruing the note but without access to the context it’s difficult to show him that. It makes sense to me that You can have an unbroken chain of succession, even if there is some debate as to the order. Any help is appreciated, thanks!

 

[DavidFilmer]

Your friend is probably correct (maybe not about this particular instance, but things like that did happen).

At one time, there were even three people who claimed the Chair of Peter, and it was not evident (and is still not evident) who had the valid claim. Historians debate these questions still.

Typically, when the validity of a claim cannot be firmly established, the “popes” renounce their claim, so that a Pope can be chosen in a clearly valid manner.

So how do you come up with a list of Popes, when we’re not sure which one of those guys was really Pope? And what happened if one of them styled himself as Pope Francis. Would that make our current Pontiff Pope Francis-2?

The lists you see published are what are considered valid Popes by a majority of Catholic theologians. But the lists are not infallible (by any means), and the lists could be wrong.

Fortunately, it does not matter to the Church whether or not we can establish the lineage of Popes. There’s no such thing as “Papal Succession” - Popes don’t nominate their successors or participate in their election in any way.

A person is recognized as Pope when he is recognized as the Bishop of Rome (which is what forms the link between the Pope and St. Peter). How that happens is irrelevant, and the method of appointing Popes has changed over time. At one point, they were appointed by emperors (really). At one point, by democratic election of the Faithful (can you imagine?) Sometimes by rich and influential (and corrupt) families (the DeMedici family, for example). Usually by a council of Bishops, which is how it is done today.

The Church does not actually need a Pope. In one instance, the Chair was vacant for more than a year and a half. Hypothetically, the Chair could be vacant for a century or more, and the Church would continue along just fine (and could then finally elect a Pope). If the Church went a century without ordaining a Bishop, She would cease to exist, but a gap in the line of Popes ultimately would not matter.

 

[DamienD]

David thank you very much for the reply. This has been eating away at me all day. My F5 button has not had this good a workout for a while. I’m in the process of trying to learn everything I can as I intend on converting ASAP.

What you said makes sense. It’s interesting though because there is so much written on how and why the office is powerful or authoritative. Logically, it would seem that “powerful” doesn’t necessarily have to mean or imply that the office needs to be necessarily occupied. I was trying to look through the Catechism to see what it said of the office or the importance of succession but I wasn’t really coming up with anything.

I would be interested to see what kind, if any, official or binding teachings were taught by any of these contested Popes.

From your post I was also able to gain a new term: sede vacante. This seems to be turning up some interesting stuff that will help me learn.

Can you think of anything else off the top of your head that you can point me towards?
Again I really appreciate the reply. Have a good one!

 

[DavidFilmer]

I would be interested to see what kind, if any, official or binding teachings were taught by any of these contested Popes.

The claims were contested quickly, and none of these contested popes ever had the chance to publish a Bull or Apostolic Letter or whatever. But, had this happened, the teaching would not have been considered authoritative (though the new (and clearly valid) Pope is always free to reiterate any of it).

Can you think of anything else off the top of your head that you can point me towards?

An interesting in-depth book about the three-way dispute I mentioned is The Three Popes, by Marzieh Gail, (c) 1969, published by Simon and Schuster. Unfortunately, it does not appear to currently be in print.

A REALLY interesting book about Popes in general is Ten Popes who Shook the World, by Eamon Duffy (currently available on Amazon). Duffy is not making any sort of effort to identify THE ten most influential Popes, but rather to tell about Popes who had tremendous influence, but most Catholics would not be familiar with. Some of these Popes influenced for the better, and some for the worse. Their reigns span many centuries, so you get a real sense of how the Office of Peter has been shaped and influenced over the years. I have the book on my Kindle, and I have read it three times in the past nine months.

 

[DamienD]

Again, David, thank you so very much for your time and thoughts.

I cannot wait to join the fray. I’ve never had a Catholic approach me with any of this, or anything regarding the faith really. The spurring of my thoughts came from an atheist challenging my foundation partially, but substantially built upon the idea of sola scriptura (though at the time I would not have been able to articulate the interaction in such a way). This was the catalyst that brought me to where I am today and I hope that I can be a Catholic catalyst for many, in the near as well as distant future.