I’m surprised that a Pope’s authority ends when he dies. Does that mean we can roll back some past statements made by Popes.
In this case, it was more that Cardinal Humbert was a papal delegate sent to Constantinople. Such appointments, up until today, are personal in nature and will lapse with the death of the delegator and the delegate. I don’t think he meant that papal authority in all matters die with the Pope’s death.
Are you saying that the Papal Bull of excommunication was not in fact Papal?
No, due to the vacant see when the Bull was laid on the altar, meaning that Humbert at the point was no longer papal delegate. I would wonder whether Humbert was aware of the Pope’s death three months earlier, which was likely as sea communications between Rome and Constantinople would have been considerably shorter than 3 months, even in those days. So, Humbert’s excommunication bull may not only have been non-papal but could even have been knowingly ultra vires his authority if he knew at that point he did not represent the Pope.
Of course, there is the possibility that Humbert had prior instructions from Leo to issue such an excommunication. We know that Leo had penned a rather aggressive letter in defence of papal rights (even if it was not delivered) and chose the undiplomatic Humbert to deliver it. So, the events could have panned out the way Leo intended. Still, his death would have invalidated Humbert’s authority, especially if Humbert was aware of the side vacante.
Another point is whether was the bull of excommunication of was papal in nature. If it was issued in the name of the Pope, then it would be invalid and we cannot even say that it was a personal excommunication by Humbert onto Cerularius and the patriarchal party. This would only be true if the bull was issued in Humbert’s own name or was at least silent on the name of the issuing party, in which was we can then assume it was Humbert as the Pope was already dead.
In any case, we have to remember that everyone in those days regarded the mutual excommunications as a minor matter and they only took on a significance in the light of subsequent events. Cerularius’ excommunication of only Humber (and the other two delegates?) indicated his reluctance to escalate matters and possibly, his awareness that the Pope was already dead.
The other thing I would like to know is what Victor, Leo’s papal successor, made of Humbert’s report on his return to Rome. I am not aware of any reaction from Victor (please correct me if I am wrong), again indicating what a minor event the excommunication was taken to be.
