Struggling with popes and apostolic succession

[2cats]

I’m reading a book on Catholic Church history, and it says that between the years 955 and 1057 there were 25 popes, many of whom were appointed by the emperor or the Roman aristocracy. How is this consistent with an unbroken line of apostolic succession? I thought popes had to be chosen by bishops.

 

[twf]

The pope, like all bishops, must be consecrated a bishop by other bishops in apostolic succession. This has always been the case. The specific means by which a man was selected for the papacy have varied down through the centuries - but regardless of the means of election/selection, all popes were certainly consecrated bishops by other bishops. When an emperor nominated a man for the papacy, he was not automatically pope by virtue of the emperor’s appointment - if he was not yet consecrated a bishop, he still had to be consecrated by three validly ordained bishops. Likewise today, if the college of cardinals elected a man who was not yet consecrated a bishop, he would have to be consecrated before he could assume the office of the papacy - in reality, however, the college has only elected men who were already consecrated bishops for many centuries.

 

[1ke]

I thought popes had to be chosen by bishops.

Nope.

 

[The_Scott]

I’m reading a book on Catholic Church history, and it says that between the years 955 and 1057 there were 25 popes, many of whom were appointed by the emperor or the Roman aristocracy. How is this consistent with an unbroken line of apostolic succession? I thought popes had to be chosen by bishops.

The appointment of popes are not set in stone, nor should they be. In the early Church, the local bishop - pope included - was chosen by the laity. As you mention, with the Byzantine period (in the early Middle Ages) did Emperor’s appoint the pope. Later, the aristocracy effectively took control of Rome - not surprising, really.

In 1059, Pope Nicolas II released the papal bull In Nomine Domini (“In the Name of the Lord”), which declared that only cardinal-bishops could vote for a new pope. Laity, clergy, and religious would have a voice - but it effectively didn’t mean anything. They may approve or disapprove of the appointment, but either decision wouldn’t effect the validity.

The purpose of this decree was twofold: first, it was to ensure papal independence from German imperial control; and second, it was to ensure that the highly influential Roman nobility, such as the Crescentii and Tusculani, did not control the elections. The two noble families, descendants (and simultaneously rivals) from an early tenth-century count named Theophylact of Tusculum, together were responsible for the appointment of nearly a century of popes, from the elevation of Pope John XII (r. 955-64), who was the great-grandson of Theophylact, to the avaricious Pope Benedict IX (r. 1034-44; 1045; 1047 – 48). The following twenty years were dominated by German popes, mainly due to the influence of the young Holy Roman Emperor Henry III.

Pope Alexander III (r. 1159-1181), in order to prevent future political instabilities such as the schism after his election, reaffirmed the role of the sole electors of the pope in his Constitution Licet de evitanda. He went further, however, and ordered that two-thirds of the cardinals must successfully vote for the next pope. If a cardinal, with only one-thirds votes from the election, declares himself pope, he, along with his followers, shall be excommunicated and “shall be deprived of the holy order in such a way that the holy Eucharist and even shall be denied to them, except if they are actually dying.” This new ecclesiastical law was promulgated as the first canon in the Third Council of the Lateran that same year in 1179. The two-third majority still applies to today’s papal elections, according to the latest revision in June 11, 2007 Apostolic Letter by Pope Benedict XVI.